1951-10-17

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) directed a question to me concerning the activities of small loan companies. Specifically, he asked whether the government was permitting these small loan companies to expand their facilities and operations despite the government's policy of restricting credit generally.
In answer to my hon. friend I may say that the small loan companies are subject to the same restrictions as everybody else under the consumer credit regulations and the voluntary program of bank credit restraint which the chartered banks have put into effect. To the extent, however, that, in order to expand their operations, such companies have raised additional capital by means of stock issues or the sale of debentures to the general public, thus drawing on the real savings of the public, they are not subject to any restrictions any more than other individual corporation or business enterprise is. It is the inflationary expansion of credit which government policies are designed to check.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will he say what steps the government is taking at the present time to implement the five-day week for bank employees?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice that he intended to ask me this question. In reply, may I say that some time ago the Canadian Bankers' Association made representations to me that the Bills of Exchange Act should be amended in order to enable the banks to operate a five-day week by closing on Saturday in cases where it would seem to them to be desirable to do so, and particularly in those areas where the five-day week had become fairly general for office employees. They represented that it was
becoming exceedingly difficult for them to obtain efficient employees in competition with other employers who were offering employment on the basis I have indicated. The representations are being sympathetically considered by the government, and I expect that we shall be able to make an announcement as to the decision at an early date.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the intention of the government to begin immediately the dismantling of the old buildings on the dominion building site at Charlottetown?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to consult the hon. gentleman before acting in Charlottetown. After this meeting, we will meet and discuss the whole situation.


Mr. McLure:: Thank you.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the subamendment moved by our leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and to make a few other observations in connection with the speech from the throne. The subamendment as moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto, Immediately after the words "high cost of living," the following words:
such as the making of provision for price controls and the payment of subsidies, where necessary, so as to equalize the sacrifices our people are called upon to make at this time.
I think the subamendment gives some point to the amendment which, in our opinion, is moved in very general terms, and I

The Address-Mr. Herridge shall possibly have something more to say about that matter later. Without a doubt the speech from the throne mentions several matters of considerable importance to the great majority of the Canadian people. We in this group welcome the decision to deal with the old age pension legislation, but we shall have to leave our comments on that matter until we see what the government presents to the house. It is also interesting to note that after many years of discussion pro and con the government has now brought forward proposals with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway. I am a westerner and am not very well acquainted with all aspects of this question but I am sure that when those proposals are before the house they will engender some lengthy and most interesting debates because, on making inquiries from people from various parts of Canada, I find that there are a number of points of view on this important question.
The government's intention to proceed with the Canso causeway must be a great cause of satisfaction to the maritime members. I have listened with a great deal of interest throughout the years to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) advocating the need for that causeway. I know that when the hon. member for Cape Breton South speaks, he does so because he knows what the people in the maritimes want. I wish to congratulate him on the success of his efforts throughout the years. I am also pleased to see that the government is taking some action in connection with the railroad problem in Canada by proposing a subsidy for the rail links between the east and the west. I think that is the first step, and a necessary one, but I also think it is a limited approach to the whole transportation problem in Canada. I shall not say anything further on that question at this time because there will no doubt be plenty of opportunity for us to express our opinions and the opinions of our constituents in that respect.
I am sure that the legislation proposed as a result of the Massey report will be welcomed by the great majority of Canadians and by many members of all parties in this house. I might say that my experience, from meeting a number of constituents during the recess, leads me to believe that this report is exceptional in one respect in particular, in that it is a government report that has been read by a wide section of the Canadian people. I have been surprised at the number of people who have been interested in reading this report; they range all the way from high school pupils to elderly people. I think this report has crystallized or, shall I say, focused the attention of Canadians on cultural matters that have been largely overlooked in the past.

I am sure that when that legislation comes before the house it will provoke interesting discussions. Before proceeding further, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I am highly pleased to see that I am honoured as usual by the rapt attention of the coalition member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson).


Mr. Knowles:: Coalition or Tory?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In that respect I might say that my leader, the other day, referred to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni as a Tory. That was quite correct because, you understand, in order to perform his function properly, he has to be a Tory one day, a Liberal on the next, and then in his more illuminated moments he is C.C.F. That is the reason why we call him the coalition member for Comox-Alberni.


Mr. Gibson:: How abusive can you get here?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Those, Mr. Speaker, are the more or less favourable comments that I have to make on the speech from the throne. It does appear to us, after reading the speech from the throne carefully, that the government does not intend to deal effectively with three matters of major importance and of great concern to a large number of Canadians. I refer particularly to the question of inflation and the rising cost of living; I refer to the demand of the veterans and many of their dependents across this country and many other Canadians for an increase in the basic rate of pension; and I refer to the great necessity for an increase in the war veterans allowance. I am sure that these omissions will be a source of great disappointment to a large number of Canadians in Canada at this time, and particularly to that section of our population that is suffering most severely from the high cost of living or that is suffering most severely from being in receipt of an inadequate pension or war veterans allowance.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the other day in reply to the Leader of the Opposition. I have great respect for the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister, from his point of view, honestly presented the situation as he sees it; and that was from the point of view of a Liberal who believes that, given time, circumstances will correct themselves without government interference or regulation. But so far as I could see, it was practically an admission from his point of view that parliament is helpless to deal effectively with inflation or with what I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) termed the blind economic forces that are at play in the country today. I would say that it would be quite correct to say that the Prime Minister was on the defensive when he made that speech.

He was obviously not speaking with the usual fire and confidence that he has displayed on previous occasions. During his reply to the leader of the opposition he had reason to refer to a pamphlet published by the Labour party in Great Britain; and a very honest and objective pamphlet it was. The Labour party in Great Britain is facing great difficulties; it is facing much greater difficulties than is the government of Canada. That pamphlet was a frank presentation of those difficulties under present circumstances. But I do not think it was quite a sound support of argument to compare Canadian conditions with conditions in Great Britain. Price control has been of considerable success in Great Britain, and a great advantage to the working classes of that country throughout the years, and so have subsidies up till recent months. A country like Great Britain, where the great majority of the food is imported and the products they require to manufacture into finished goods are also imported, could no longer resist the external pressures of inflationary prices caused by policies pursued in other countries.
The Prime Minister also had occasion to refer to prices in the United States. I see the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) laughing. He usually takes a more serious approach to this question. There are some members who do laugh at things, but he is much more serious. I am surprised to see him laughing at this time.
The Prime Minister had occasion to refer to prices in the United States. If I heard him correctly he was referring to prices in Washington, and from my information he was quoting one of the highest price centres in the United States. I think the figures he quoted were not figures that would indicate the price range on the average across the United States. My observations would lead me to believe that in some things the United States prices are much lower than ours, in some they are very close, and in some they are slightly higher. On the whole I think it is fair to say that the United States prices are on the average nearly equal to Canadian prices; but the point is that wages in the United States are much higher. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it was a good argument to present the price range in the United States and compare it with the price range in Canada at the present time.


Mr. George:: So is the productivity per man.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Westmorland said: "So is the productivity per man". I cannot remember the publication, but one of the publications that support the Liberal party recently explained that in connection with some criticism of production in
The Address-Mr. Herridge Canada by saying the reason for that is there is 25 per cent more power per industrial worker in the United States available than there is in Canada at the present time.
I should now like to refer to an editorial which appeared in today's Ottawa Citizen entitled: "Comparing prices doesn't mean much." This editorial put the position rather neatly and I should like to quote briefly from it. It mentions that the Prime Minister was comparing United States prices with Canadian prices, and so on. Then the editorial concludes as follows:
The fact remains that, irrespective of what is happening in the United States, the burden of food prices and of many other things ranking as necessities or conveniences has become oppressive in the experience of a large segment of Canadians. Mr. St. Laurent prefers to swing the emphasis the other way. He says: "There is no doubt that certain sectors of our population are feeling some hardship, but not all sectors of our population."
This is undoubtedly true. The top end of the income scale is not feeling the pinch, nor a large part of the intermediate groups. Some wage earners may be counted among the relatively well-to-do. But others certainly are not; nor are thousands of clerks and other office workers- including government employees-to whom a rise of a point in the cost-of-living index is a matter of increasing gravity.
With reference to the Prime Minister's comparison of United States prices with Canadian prices I want to quote in addition from Time magazine of July 16. Mr. Eric Johnston, United States economic stabilizer, was quoted as saying:
"Under great inflationary pressures, you must have . . . direct controls. I'll give you one illustration of it, and that is Canada."
His point was that Ottawa's program of drastic fiscal controls was not going so well as the United States policy.
Before passing on may I say that we have given credit to the Prime Minister's sincerity as a supporter of undiluted free enterprise. Do not forget this: Free enterprise often takes credit to itself for the relatively high standard of living we have on the North American continent. I make the statement that the relatively high standard of living which is enjoyed by the people of the North American continent is enjoyed at the present time because of the vicious exploitation of the natural resources of the North American continent without any regard to the future. What can the free enterprise system do in Italy? What can it do in any country to raise the standard of living equal to ours without abundant natural resources? We are fortunate on this continent because we have great natural resources at the present time. Do not forget that our mineral resources are being depleted very rapidly, and there is no replacement of mineral resources. There is a
114	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge tremendous depletion of timber resources in this country, and a depletion of land resources by some improper farming practices and erosion. I shall have more to say on that point at some favourable opportunity. I must say that the subject of conservation is something of a phobia with me. I believe that this generation is not paying sufficient attention to the needs of the future generations in the development of our natural resources. The basis of our high standard of living is the opportunity to develop vast natural resources wastefully.
I want to bring another point to the attention of the house. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this question of price control is a subject on which many in this house feel very keenly. It has been discussed many times, and therefore it is difficult to present the subject from any new angles or on a new basis; but it struck me the other day, when I was sitting in the house listening to the opening of the debate, what a strange thing has occurred when in the last two or three years you realize that the Liberals and Conservatives have practically changed positions with respect to the problem of price control. That is an interesting situation.
We all remember what the late prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, had to say. I shall not quote him as he was quoted recently by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We all know what he bad to say with respect to the value of price controls and necessary subsidies. We are all familiar with the statements of Donald Gordon and many others. In addition to that we have Mr. Ilsley at page 3185 of Hansard of July 5, 1946, saying:
The war, and the experience of other countries, have indeed taught us the vital importance of keeping all inflationary pressures under firm control until supply and demand conditions are in a more normal relationship. The present Canadian program should strengthen our hands in that regard. We have removed uncertainties and simplified administration by preparing a specific list of goods and services whose prices are under control. We have reaffirmed the principles of price control, and of adjustments where necessity is proved, in respect of Canadian products.
Now, without a doubt during the war and after that period leading Liberal speakers, those in authority, and the government expressed their favourable opinions on price controls and necessary subsidies. On the other hand we find the Progressive Conservatives, who are the upholders of the free enterprise system, taking the opposite view at that time. I want to deal with that situation for a few minutes to indicate the oscillations in these policies and points of view within three years


of this parliament, and as showing almost a complete reversal of their points of view.
On February 3, 1947, at page 47 of Hansard Mr. John Bracken had this to say:
All the indications are that delay from now on in removing controls will cause constantly increasing difficulties. The moral of this is that the sooner these hindrances to production can be removed, the sooner we will get the advantage of free and full production.
Again on March 11, 1947, at page 1270 of Hansard, Mr. Jackman of Rosedale, a Progressive Conservative member, had this to say:
Furthermore, 1 do not think that if controls were taken off lumber-not export control but price control-we would find that lumber would go up much in price.
What a hope! I continue:
The people do have some respect for the purchasing power of the dollar: if they do not get good value they will refuse to invest, and it will be found that, instead of its being a seller's market, it will become a buyer's market.
The very opposite of that has been true. It has been for some years a seller's market, so far as lumber is concerned.
I happen to have something further in my notes, in error; but seeing that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is looking at me so intently, I take great delight in reading it. I refer now to Hansard for April 16, 1947, page 2099-and may I say that I think in this instance the hon. member for Lake Centre shows more statesmanship than some of his colleagues have shown. This is what I find:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit one question before he takes his seat? Does he favour or disapprove the principle of price control?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I favour anything that will be
good for this dominion, provided the rights of the individual are protected.
What a masterpiece of statesmanship.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But what did it mean?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then, on April 18, 1947, as reported at page 2185, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) had this to say:
... in advocating the elimination of controls or now the lessening of controls, in spite of what was said about us as favouring big business-and that, of course, is not true-we are trying to do what we think will enable the small man, the man trying to get into business for himself now, better to do so . . . Indeed it seems to me that at the moment the trouble with the control policy of the government, or the stage at which it has arrived, is that it is only half a plan. It is half control and half decontrol and neither half is working. That is why we say the sooner you get rid of it, the better.
Then I find some shift of opinion in this respect in the Social Credit party. These are the words of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) as they are reported at page 1606 of Hansard for March 21, 1947:
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me foolish to continue a rigid control of prices which was an

emergency measure designed mainly to restrict certain kinds of production. Rather it seems to me that by removing every possible barrier to it, production should be increased to the utmost in order that, through competition to please consumers, the control of prices will be exercised by the people through the things they have to buy.
That certainly has not taken place.
Social Crediters are implacably opposed to planned controls which enhance the power of the state at the expense of the liberties of the individuals of Canada. We vigorously oppose all such controls as vested in hordes of insolent bureaucrats authority over every phase of the lives of the people. Rather do we urge that as rapidly as possible wartime bureaucratic controls be removed.
And then, Mr. Speaker, I do not find myself in agreement with gentlemen who expressed themselves as follows in a brief by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to the royal commission on prices on December 16, 1948:
To interfere with the function of prices can only result in the loss of political, economic and social freedom.
And then the Canadian Manufacturers Association, as reported in the Globe and Mail in January of 1947:
The executive council of the Canadian Manufacturers Association meeting in Toronto on January 28, 1947, called for removal of price control as soon as possible.
We find in this connection that the Progressive Conservatives at that time were vigorously opposed to price controls. Indeed, as my leader said the other day, no doubt their propaganda, their urgings, and the newspaper space given to that propaganda had some effect in increasing the rate of decontrol carried on by the Liberal party.
Then, this is what was said by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) as reported at page 3221 of Hansard for July 8, 1946:
Under our system the duty of government is to create conditions to increase the number of those who will provide employment. There must be more enterprises, more people to take risks. For that there must be freedom for profits, too-
And that is exactly what we have had in the last five years, namely almost complete freedom for profits. And he continues:
-because that is the way to distinguish between efficiency and inefficiency.
That is the difference between efficient and inefficient gouging of the public. Then he says:
That is the way and the only way to get the maximum production in a free country.
The point is that under present circumstances the government has returned to the basic principle of free enterprise. That is the policy the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) emphasized the other day-that these conditions will correct themselves without government regulation or interference, if given time.
The Address-Mr. Herridge
But the Progressive Conservative party cannot take the same position and expect to have alternative programs to present to the people of Canada. That party is existing on the horns of a dilemma. Their economic theories are in direct conflict with public opinion on the question of inflation and price controls at the present time. So I presume that is why we have before us a Progressive Conservative amendment in general terms- although we do see the occasional Progressive Conservative advocating price controls in the country, as they have done in British Columbia and in other places. Generally they have been playing the question down to some extent and speaking in more general terms recently.
On one side we have the Progressive Conservative party, the Canadian Manufacturers Association and Canadian chambers of commerce in the past taking a definite stand against price controls and the continuation of necessary subsidies. I do not blame them. From their point of view, on the basis of their economic philosophy, that is a proper stand for them to take.
On the other hand I make the statement that we in this group are the only group in the House of Commons who have been consistent in the matter of price controls and subsidies, and their application to the needs of the Canadian people. I believe I am being quite fair when I make that statement. Our consistency is based upon an entirely different approach to economic questions.
At the present time the demands for price controls and for certain necessary subsidies is supported by the C.C.F. movement across Canada and, according to public opinion polls, by 70 to 80 per cent of the Canadian people, as well as by the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Catholic Confederation of Labour and the running trades-and I am referring of course to members of the railroad unions. In addition to these there are other groups, including veterans organizations, and some municipal councils.
Why do we see this vacillating policy of the Liberal and Conservative parties with respect to price controls and necessary subsidies, as opposed to our recognizedly consistent policy? All of us have a similar approach to parliamentary procedure, civil rights and matters of that kind. We are agreed pretty generally on those questions. The great difference of opinion in the house arises between those who hold that the basis of society should be the capitalist free enterprise basis and those of us, members of this group, and our supporters, who believe that we can do something consciously to

The Address-Mr. Herridge regulate the economic climate of this country, and that we in parliament can institute certain economic changes through the ownership of larger segments of the economy and through the control of other sections of it, by making certain that that private segment of the economy operates to the public advantage and good. We in the House of Commons, as the people's representatives, have the power and the right to do whatever is necessary at this time in taking the first step to bring order out of chaos in the economic sphere.
As I said before, the question of price controls and subsidies is not socialism. Do not forget that the days of free enterprise, as represented by the old parties, are past. That at any rate is my opinion. We will have either a regulated economy moving more and more to the right toward fascism, or we will have a regulated economy controlled by the people's representatives through our normal parliamentary and constitutional institutions that will be based upon ideas presented day after day by members of this group in the house, and in the country.
In my opinion at the present time the people of Canada are faced with a choice between those who have undiluted admiration for the free enterprise system, as represented by the Liberal party, and those who have seen the economic handwriting on the wall, as represented by the members of this group in this house.
We have this sharp difference because the C.C.F. is more than a political party or a political force in this country. We believe that the people should control, should have economic power through parliament. As I said before, this should be done through public ownership of a segment of the economy, through public control of a segment of the economy, and by ensuring that private enterprise serves the needs of Canada as a whole. In brief, we believe in economic planning and that this parliament has the power to lay down policies to give effect to that planning. We believe that human beings can consciously direct economic affairs to the general advantage of all. But, to do that, all people must participate. We believe that all the people of this country must be made partners in the methods and the functionings of democracy and that there should be real control by the people in the operating of our economy.
I think it is quite safe to say that at the present time the majority of the members of the Liberal and the Progressive Conservative parties believe that the law of supply

and demand is functioning and that in the long run it will operate to the satisfaction of the populace of the country, that given time things will correct themselves in the normal way. I want to give just one illustration to indicate what in my opinion is the fallacy of that argument. I am going to give some figures concerning the marketing of hogs on the Winnipeg public livestock market during the summer months of this year. I suppose I am taking hogs as an example because I have always had a kindly feeling toward pigs. I usually have kept a number of pigs and have taken great delight in feeding them. I assume it is natural for me to look at the price of hogs to see what the producer is getting and what the consumer is paying.
I intend to quote from figures which cannot be challenged. The prices of hogs marketed on the Winnipeg public livestock market during 1951 show the relationship between the prices paid to the producer and the prices paid by the consumer. I quote:
	No. of	Average
	Hogs	Price
Week ending	Delivered	per cwt.June 30, 1951 	... 1,486	$36.10July 28, 1951 	.. 1,278	37.60August 25, 1951 	,.. 1,452	35.60Daily	September 10, 1951 	.. 685	$35.60September 11, 1951 	.. 75	35.60September 17, 1951 	,.. 640	32.10September 18, 1951 	.. 95	29.10September 19, 1951 	.. 270	29.10September 20, 1951 	... 30	28.10September 21, 1951 	... 40	28.10
It will be noted that when there was a decline in deliveries there was also a decline in the price paid to the producer. While the number of hogs going into the market was decreasing, the price to the producer was also going down. During the same period the price to the consumer was steadily rising. I should like to quote from a news item which appeared in the Leader-Post of September 20, 1951, and reading:
There seems to be little apparent relationship between the volume of marketings and the prices received by the producer. Indeed, judging by the figures presented above, marketings at Winnipeg for the week ending July 28, 1951, when the average price received by the hog producer was $37.60 per cwt. actually exceeded the marketings in the week ending September 21, 1951, when the price dropped as low as $28.10 per cwt. The decline in prices has greatly exceeded the normal seasonal decline in price, and thus far, has been confined mainly to western Canada.
Another apparent anomaly exists in the relationship between retail price in June and present day prices. According to the dominion bureau of statistics, the average retail price for pork chops in Regina during the month of June, 1951, was 66-5 cents per lb. However, as of September 20, 1951, pork chops were retailing in Regina at 84 cents per lb.
1X7

Just before the producer was ready to make large deliveries of hogs to the market the price dropped to $28.10 while at the same time the price to the consumer rose steadily. Do you mean to tell me that this or any other Canadian government could not take action in a situation like this? We believe this government should take action. I have given these figures as an illustration that the law of supply and demand is not in effect at the present time. What we have is the law of monopoly and the control of natural resources, of markets and the prices. That is what is governing the Canadian economy at this time.
I happened to be scanning some papers recently and I found a rather interesting article entitled "Look Reports from Washington". As hon. members know, difficulties are being experienced in marketing apples at the present time, and difficulties have been experienced elsewhere in marketing other agricultural products. Many of our producers in Canada face a most uncertain future, vet I read this:	'
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has released a communique about what its technical experts are doing. "Thailand and Indonesia," FAO reports, "are at present receiving expert advice in stabilization of internal market prices of farm products." There doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt that as soon as the Thailanders and Indonesians learn how to stabilize their farm prices they will come over here and help us with ours.
Just imagine, through the United Nations we are sending experts to these countries to teach them how to stabilize prices. I quote that simply to show the ridiculous position we are in at the present time. We in this group believe sincerely that this government will eventually be forced to take action with respect to controls. I realize that no one likes controls; but in fact civilization has advanced only as we have learned selfdiscipline and collective discipline. I repeat, we believe that this government will be forced to take some action in the near future as a result of rising prices and the demands of the Canadian people. We believe in the regulation of things rather than the regulation of people. We ask the government to grapple with the problem of inflation, to establish price controls where necessary on commodities essential to the average family, to establish subsidies where necessary and to institute an excess profits tax to provide for the payment of these subsidies.
We urge the government to accept the offer of organized labour as represented by the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour and other groups which have offered to work
The Address-Mr. Herridge with the government and business to protect the standard of living of the Canadian people. The government should also consult with agriculture. An effort should be made to bring the representatives of labour, of agriculture, of industry and of business together with those of the government in an effort to solve some of the problems and get rid of many of the misunderstandings which exist today. I do not underestimate the difficulties created by the international situation and external affairs over which we have no control, but action such as this would give some hope to the Canadian people. Such a group could discuss these common problems and arrive at a mutual understanding. In doing that we would at least be taking some steps toward economic stability.
I want to deal with one or two matters that are of concern to the veterans of my constituency. I think one of the reporters for Saturday Night made a rather caustic comment in an article recently about members who deal with parochial issues. I want to say in reply that if the members of this parliament did not deal with parochial issues a good many of us would sit here year after year with very little understanding of conditions and circumstances throughout the whole country.
The veterans and their dependents and many others in the constituency which I have the honour to represent are seriously concerned about the government's failure to do something about an increase in the basic rate of disability pensions and about the increasing of war veterans allowances. During the lecess I had the opportunity of addressing a good many veterans and Legion meetings throughout my constituency, and also meetings of the ladies auxiliaries. I am very fond of the ladies auxiliaries; they do an excellent work. At these meetings there were supporters of all parties in this house, and they expressed their views, regardless of their political beliefs, in no uncertain terms with respect to the need for an increase in the basic rate of pension and in war veterans allowances.
I want to support the stand of previous speakers in this connection, but in order to be brief, as I see my time is fast slipping away, I shall quote from the September issue of The Legionary. There are two paragraphs which express very clearly the attitude of the veterans towards these problems. With respect to the disability pension. The Legionary has this to say:
A man who carries a handicap throughout his life -a handicap incurred in the voluntary defence of this country-should not be penalized if he has the

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker courage and determination to overcome that handicap and earn a living. Anything less than an adequate increase in the basic rate of pension penalizes pensioners in this category.
In my opinion that is quite correct. I was a member of the veterans affairs committee.
I listened to the representations of the Legion and the national council of veterans, and as usual they were very sensible and responsible in presenting their proposals and supporting them with reasonable arguments relating to the cost of living, the increase in wages and the increase in prices. I hope that the government will take some action in that respect at this session. With respect to war veterans allowances for what are termed burnt-out veterans, The Legionary has this to say:
In all oUr considerations of this question we must not forget the extreme and urgent need of the '[DOT]burnt-out" veteran. War veterans allowance has presented and continues to present a difficult problem due in large part to the complexities attendant on the introduction of universal old age pension. But the present rates of war veterans allowance bear no relation to the cost of living. If $40 single and $70 married were considered necessary by the government in 1948, then obviously the $50 single and $100 married that the Legion now requests is very moderate indeed. It is essential that we do not lose sight of this need in our very natural anxiety over the basic pension rate.
I heartily support the Legion in their urgent request for an increase in the basic rate of disability pensions and in the war veterans allowance. Veterans legislation generally is a credit to this parliament and to the government. We think this failure to increase the basic rate of pension is an unnecessary blot on that legislation and a desertion of a pension principle that has been recognized throughout the country, for years. The veterans of this country and their dependents and large numbers of people who support their point of view expect the government to take action soon.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, first may I join with the hon. member who has just taken his seat in support of the request, and that of tens of thousands of Canadians everywhere, that favourable consideration be given at this session to the veterans' brief presented to the government by the Canadian Legion. I listened with more than a little interest to the hon. gentleman who preceded me. He dealt at great length with the benefits of socialism and the shortcomings of private enterprise. I did not intend to become involved in that discussion when I rose, even for a few passing words, but having regard to the fact that he brought me into the discussion in one of his quotations I may be allowed a few words in reply.
[Mr. Herridge.l

My hon. friend pointed out the inconsistencies of others. I should like to draw his attention to the fact that we have in Saskatchewan a socialist government able to carry out many of the promises and principles which he enunciated but which, strange to say, they have not carried out. He referred in his quotations to 1946 and 1947. My recollection of those years was that many believed we were coming into a prolonged period of peace, that the days of international emergency were passing. We who believe in the principle of private enterprise, and believe we owe our standard of living in North America to personal initiative, were of the opinion that war emergencies no longer justified the crippling effects of socialistic practices that prevailed during the war. When so much is made of 1946 and 1947, my mind goes back to the statute book of Saskatchewan in which province on April 1, 1946-


Mr. Sinnoil:: April Fool's day.


John George Diefenbaker: It was an appropriate date-legislation was passed by the legislature of Saskatchewan to control all prices and wages. It was to be proclaimed within one year. It was never proclaimed. It provided that everybody who broke the law would be subject to a fine, and in default of payment thereof imprisonment. I presume the reason that the legislation was not brought into force was that there would then have been only three classes in the community, those in jail waiting to get out, those in jail, and the rest of the people waiting to get in.
When my hon. friend speaks of the exploitation of natural resources and of the need of public development thereof, let me point out to him that the government of Saskatchewan has found that it cannot develop the natural resources of that province, the vast uranium and oil, by public enterprise. It has had to allow private enterprise to make the speculative expenditures necessary for development. It is so easy to say that socialist theories will work out, but the experience in my province has been that the promise of public development has been followed by the request of the government for private development within the province.
Then he also said: We believe in the regulation of things rather than people. What did he mean by that? There is a fisherman in northern Saskatchewan by the name of Ivanchuk. He had his equipment taken from him and impounded because of an alleged offence. For a month he was kept from carrying out his occupation. He asked to be charged, but he was not charged. The

government gave him back his equipment. This does not impress me as the regulation of things rather than people.
This session is one that will be known as the inflation session in which a supreme challenge to our way of life must receive the attention of parliament. Parliament must speak. Under our system of government, freedom can only live by means of continuous debate. The self-corrective in democracy is the power of parliament to exercise the power of fearless and effective debate, designed not to destroy political opponents but to arrive at conclusions necessary to the preservation of our way of life. I am impressed by the fact that in these serious hours and days the members of the Liberal party are not taking their part in the debate. Caucus cannot take the place of parliament. This is a matter that affects each and every one of us.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has announced that all parliament is to do to meet inflation is to consider the passage of legislation regarding fair trade prices. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who is not present and for that reason I hesitate to mention it, last night gave his version of an anti-inflation policy. He said, in effect, "Please write me a letter and tell me what is wrong". That is hardly enough in days such as these. Parliament lives because of the opportunity it gives to members to debate the issues of the day, untrammelled and uncontrolled, and unfearful of an overwhelmingly powerful government. I have before me an editorial which appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of June 13, 1951, entitled "Is Parliament free"? It says this:
We do not suggest that the cabinet has enslaved this parliament but we think there are dangerous symptoms pointing in that direction. It is as much the duty of the government as of the members to see that the disease does not spread. The government members have a particular responsibility in this regard.
Then it points out that on occasion members in the house have seemed to place party unity ahead of the wishes of their constituents.
The two hon. members who opened the debate gave interesting speeches, and I congratulate them. The member for Beauharnois (Mr. Cauchon), with that capacity for language which he possesses, spoke effectively in both English and French. The member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons) gave us a picture of the north country which I am sure parliament will not soon forget. What seems to be lacking is any serious endeavour by the government to meet the problem of inflation, ballooning prices-one could call them "balloonatic" prices. Prices are mounting day by day and week by week. Over the years there have been the promises of
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker cabinet ministers that we have hit the price limit. When the index level was about 145 or 148 they said prices were levelling out. From time to time government ministers would indicate that we were arriving at a time when at least a degree of hope would be restored to the men and women on small incomes, the pensioners, and to that great body of people within our country whose income is small.
The Prime Minister made a speech, obviously a difficult one for him to make. Here was a great counsel presenting an argument on behalf of the government, but the best one could say for it was that it was a milestone of defeatism in meeting the problem of inflation. He made a comparison of our prices with those in Washington. The Prime Minister said that there is no doubt that certain sectors of our population are feeling some hardship, but not all sectors. The fact is that the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar is dropping faster than it is in the United States. According to a Canadian press report in October, the Canadian dollar declined 6-4 cents in the year against a decline by the United States dollar of 3-8 cents.
The cost of living index is now about 190, and still going up. For the farmer the situation is even worse than for other people in the community. The index of things the farmer has to buy has gone to 217-4. Hardship is being wrought upon our people and parliament is here to meet the situation. What a variety of suggestions have been made by the government to meet it! One minister says taxes and more taxes. Another says purchase less and save. There has been a policy of wait and see, while true income shrinks. The government has contributed much to this increased cost of living. Last March and April when hon. members on this side of the house unsuccessfully asked government supporters to join them in opposing the increase in the sales tax from 8 per cent to 10 per cent, the ministers' answer was that it would not raise the cost of living appreciably. It has. Some ministers say in effect no price controls yet but possibly some time, thereby benefiting those who are "all set" as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said.
Has government policy to meet inflation been of any use? If it has, the undiscriminating eye cannot see it. There have been increased interest rates, discouragement of bank loans, postponed depreciation allowance, higher taxes, and yet the inflation increases.
The Free Press in an editorial says it- -must come as a sharp and surprising disappointment to the government. It had expected that retail

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker prices, having levelled off, would remain fairly stable during the next few months at least.	,
This editorial appeared on July 9, 1951.
It continues:
It must be remembered, however, that the deflation policy launched in February with increased interest rates, the discouragement of bank loans, postponed depreciation allowances and then higher taxes unavoidably must take some time to show its effects.
It had not been expected in Ottawa that the full results would be clear before midsummer. The retail price figures for June and July, therefore, will be awaited with interest.
Where June and July price levels were revealed further increases in price levels were shown. Surely if ever any government for a period of five long years has shown its ineptitude in prophecy as to prices, this government has done so. I have a great many quotations here but I am not going to burden the house with them, going back to 1946, 1947 and 1948. Here is one in January, 1948, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), speaking in New York, said:
It is possible that there might be selective reimposition of price control but that will depend on what parliament decides and what may happen down here.
That was referring to the United States in 1948. The Prime Minister at about the same time made a speech at a Liberal luncheon in Quebec and he said:
A power chain exists in Canadian prices and the greed for higher prices and profits will have to be curbed.
And he said: "We know that and we are working on it." That at least was positive. Then the Minister of Finance, on February 14 in Brantford, is reported in the Toronto Star as having stated in an interview that there were indications that inflationary pressures might now have done their worst and that prices might be sagging down from their peak.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They did, too.


John George Diefenbaker: Sagging, Mr. Speaker?
The Liberal federation met in 1948 also; it had some suggestions and I read from the resolution of February 10:
The government should be prepared to take any steps necessary to prevent profiteering, to control unjustified prices and to keep the cost of living at the most reasonable level consistent with national welfare.
Next they said:
Monopolies and special privileges have no place in a democratic state in which the principles and policies of liberalism are applied.
Then you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that finally as a diversionary movement, a committee of parliament was set up in 1948. At that time the cost of living was around 150. The longer the committee sat the higher went prices. A royal commission was set up and 
the longer the royal commission sat, the higher went prices. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Justice have recently indulged in a trilogy of radio speeches in which they have set forth what should be done now. They produced a blueprint, a well-starched anti-inflationary program last November, and then another one in February; but still prices have continued to rise. The Minister of Finance still stands for the old principle: tax, and tax, and tax. The Minister of Justice, however, has his own policy as enunciated last night. This is to operate in co-operation with the policy of the Minister of Finance and that of the Prime Minister. He asks those affected by injustice to write to the combines commissioner. I venture the opinion that the Minister of Justice with that suggestion brought to the Post Office Department a source of income that will do away with the deficit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I hope the hon. member is right.


John George Diefenbaker: Finally it ends up in this way:
If, in this connection, you think I can be of any help, by all means write to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when I heard those tones going over the radio last night, I just wondered whether the letters that he would receive would be mislaid or even hidden, as was the communication that he got some two years ago from Mr. McGregor regarding the flour milling combine.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce also made a speech. He said in effect that the government do not want to do anything that will not be successful which would push people around. That was a new sentiment for him, Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister has announced that the only thing to be done at this session regarding high prices is to bring in some legislation regarding the setting of resale prices by the wholesaler or the manufacturer to the retailer. I can conceive of no lighter foot than that one being put on the brake of inflation. They have had a similar suggestion before them for years.
In 1926 the Proprietary Articles Trade Association of Toronto was declared to be a combine because it did that very thing, in a report from the combines branch dated October 24, 1927. The Curtis royal commission in December, 1948, pointed out that "the growing practice of resale price maintenance" was a matter of serious concern.
If it was a matter of serious concern then, why was not something done about it since then? The United States supreme court this year ruled that price maintenance is not

enforceable as between non-signers, price maintenance being a policy by which an individual manufacturer of branded goods prescribes the price at which they are to be sold, both to the wholesaler and to the retailer.
Does any minister of the crown say that such a bit of legislation is facing up to the problem confronting the Canadian people? The Prime Minister does not do so. In effect he says: It is good as far as it goes, but I do not think it will go very far. What about the small and independent merchants? I suggest that such legislation-and I speak only for myself-if introduced, and price maintenance represents less than four per cent of retail sales in this dominion, can have an effect exceedingly detrimental to the independent, small businessmen in this country. The larger outlets, with lower unit overhead costs, may conceivably, under this legislation, secure a monopoly that will put out of business the small man dealing in nationally advertised goods. Surely the government has something more than a picayune promise of an alteration in the law under which even now, if price maintenance were in effect as between a group of manufacturers or wholesalers and individuals, it would be an offence against the combines act. I suggest that the anticipated legislation is simply a smoke screen to conceal the lack of an effective policy to meet inflation. Since 1946 the government has hoped that things would turn, out all right, has procrastinated with promises of future action and has failed to act. Why has not the government investigated the spread between the price the consumer pays and what the farmer receives for so many commodities?
Much was said by the Prime Minister about the cost of foods. The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) dealt with one product in his speech, namely, meat. He showed that there was-and his figures have not been challenged, and therefore after this time can be accepted-too great a disparity between the price the consumer has to pay and the price paid to the farmer. Why has there been no investigation into price spreads and the blame placed on those responsible? Why is the Combines Investigation Act not going to be brought before the house at this session with a view to having it looked into and suggestions made by hon. members from all parties?
A commission-the MacQuarrie commission -was appointed on June 27, 1950, to review the act. The only report it has made is the report on fair price practices. The Minister of Justice asked for that report on September 10. Surely there is no one here who will contend that when any monopoly corporation operating a combine, however powerful it
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker may be, or any group of individuals break the law-and I refer not to honest business, I refer to individuals however powerful, who break the law-they should be allowed to do so with impunity. The penalty under the combines legislation is a fine of $10,000, a fraction of what the illicit gains may be to those who by design evade the law and exploit the public. Ten thousand dollars! If you were to say to those engaged in robbery, we will take three or four per cent of what you make, we would not be discouraging robbery. After all, one judge of this country has found that that is what certain gains were-as the law against combines now stands-it is robbery. Potential profits great; potential penalty picayune.
Why should not the combines act be brought before a committee of parliament and changes made to make the breaking of the law less encouraging? The combines legislation is not being effectively enforced by this government. There have been a few prosecutions where the gains were tremendous, but a maximum fine of $10,000 is no deterrent. The Minister of Justice, who is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the act, called on the Canadian people last night to write to him, please. How many investigations have there been in the last year as the result of the minister asking the combines commissioner to investigate? Not one. No investigations were made as a result of ministerial direction or formal application during the past year. That is from the annual report of March, 1951. That does not indicate that the government is facing up to its responsibility.
I suggest first and foremost that if the act is not adequate for the job it be revamped so that Canadians who are being exploited unjustly will know that the law will protect them if enforced. The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix in an editorial entitled "Tighten up on Combines", says:
There is no reason why the present legislation should not be used to its maximum extent. The consumer needs the protection of the combines act more now than at almost any other period of our history. Yet our government is caught with its legislation to restrain monopolies out of repair.
There has been a failure on the part of the government to put teeth in the penalty clauses so that the penalty for wrongdoing would be commensurate with the crime committed. I do ask the government to do something regarding inflation; to use the law now on the statute books, not as a feather duster, but as an instrument to strike fear into the hearts of those who unjustly take advantage of the people or, to use the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who having been all set to take advantage are unlawfully profiteering.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
Newspapers across this dominion have asked that government revamp the Combines Investigation Act. An editorial in the Star-Phoenix on October 4, 1951, reads:
The amount of money involved is not large enough in relation to the potential profits to discourage fresh attempts to control competition in other ways.
Surely the act should be used in the fight against inflation. The failure to use the report against the flour milling industry having been concealed until prosecution could no longer take place makes Canadians wonder whether this government is doing so.
I want to make a short reference to the agricultural situation. The hon. member who preceded me said that hon. members must mention matters peculiar to their own part of the country. What I wish to deal with now is not parochial; it affects every farmer in western Canada. The situation is most serious. In the other place yesterday Senator Wood dealt with the matter at length. The harvest hopes of a few months ago have been diminished by continued rain and snow. Storage is at a premium; in fact, it is not available. As an encouragement to the western farmers to make the expenditures of building storage facilities I suggest that payments should be made for storage on the farms. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that it would come out of the farmer. Not at all. It would simply be an advance to him of moneys that he ultimately would receive when the final payment was made. When the farmer's wheat is stored by the elevator companies 1J cents a month is paid for the storage which is an expense to the farmer.
My second point is that loans should be made available to farmers on wheat in farm storage. The United States has that system in effect. The Commonwealth Credit Corporation grants loans up to 80 per cent or 90 per cent of parity, and, in addition to that, makes loans up to 85 per cent of the construction costs so that the farmers can build their own storage structures.
There is need for something to be done to increase the prices and thereby avoid the terrific loss that the western farmer is sustaining under the international wheat agreement by reason of having to sell his wheat under that agreement at 50 cents a bushel less than at the world market price. I believe there is every justification for the western farmer to ask that the wheat sold for consumption in Canada should be on the basis of the world price rather than on the basis of the price in the international wheat agreement. The international wheat agreement has lost for the Canadian farmer, to date, well over $100 million. He has received


no stability of prices-unless one is content to call prices far below world prices "stability". The one stability it provides for is that his loss is stabilized at around 50 cents a bushel.
I have before me a number of letters on the point, some of which were received today. These deal with the recent order of the wheat board allowing farmers anywhere to store their wheat at whatever elevator and where-ever space is available. This is working an injustice against many of the small farmers whose elevator facilities in their local towns have been filled from farms in districts many miles distant. The result is that, owing to the lack of sufficient freight cars, the situation has been intensified locally for them.
The Saskatchewan retail merchants association has given support to the need for the provision of local farm storage, and of advances being made on the basis of that storage. It is all very well to be optimistic regarding the western farm and storage situation; but I say it is serious. We are going to have well over 100 million bushels of almost unsaleable wheat by reason of recent rains and climatic conditions. Surely provision should be made for the assured storage of that wheat which is of better grade.
Finally, in that connection, without exception farm organizations are asking for a reduction in the differential in price between numbers 2 and 3 wheat, and numbers 4 and 5 wheat. The differential is altogether too large and should be lessened.
The speech from the throne says that some further consideration is being given to the question of the Saskatchewan river power and dam project. A commission has been set up. The press in Saskatchewan, generally, is agreed, as are the people, that it is most unfair to have continuous stalling taking place in connection with the project. It has been found feasible and is necessary for defence purposes and for the development of the province.
The commission will review what officials operating under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act have found, as well as what engineers appointed by the government have found. As is pointed out by the Leader-Post, this indicates needless duplication. Nothing would do more to restore a degree of hope in those areas which, while not this year affected by drought, have been seriously affected in other years, than to have the government take action now.
This project should not be made a political football. There is not a member from Saskatchewan who does not support it. The

Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has promised it. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has given his undivided support to this project. I do not want to have it held back until the next provincial election. The project is needed in Saskatchewan, and I am deeply disappointed that in place of performance the speech from the throne provides for a promise of re-examination by experts.
The project would pay dividends and nationally it would be self-liquidating. It would assure diversified industries for the province. It would preserve us from fear of recurrent droughts, in an area of some 500,000 acres.
This is an inflation session. If we do not act effectively at this session of parliament, and if the ascent of ballooning prices continues, I fear for the future of our country. Our defence projects cannot achieve success unless this problem is met. Surely the intelligence of the House of Commons can produce something more than the promised amendment to the Combines Investigation Act.	.
The great base upon which inflation flourishes will remain if all parliament does is to pass another law which I fear will join the limbo of forgotten things.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the remarks I had intended to make this afternoon I wish to comment briefly upon some observations made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), who preceded me earlier this afternoon. At that time he made reference to the stand taken by the Social Credit party on the question of price control.
I have sat in the House of Commons for almost sixteen years, and I cannot think of any group more subject to criticism for its change in stand than the C.C.F. party, to which the hon. member for Kootenay West has been recently readmitted. I feel that had he had the intelligence of ordinary people he would have had no difficulty at all in understanding our position with respect to controls.
Now and in the past we have refused consistently to accept controls just for the sake of controls, as he and his associates have advocated and continue to do. On Monday last my leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), had this to say, as reported at page 54-I hope the gentleman who was criticizing us will take the time to read this over once again:
We Social Crediters are convinced that a system of over-all direct price controls, with all the regimentation and restrictions it entails, is the very negation of the democratic way of life. That is the
The Address-Mr. Fair first point. We further believe that as long as Canada continues to participate in the numerous international organizations to which she is now committed, such as NATO, Bretton Woods, the United Nations, the Colombo plan, and so on, the cream of Canadian production is likely to be given away externally, leaving in our country effective demand for which there is no balancing supply of consumer goods. In that situation pressures for price rises are inevitable, particularly if large corporations continue to pile up inventories so that those goods are not released to the Canadian public. It is our conviction too that as long as we continue to operate under the present financial and economic system this country cannot maintain a condition of full employment, even in peacetime, without some price control arrangements. Until proper financial and economic reforms are established in Canada to take care of the situation on a long-term basis, it may be necessary to adopt certain price controls, as has been advocated by both opposition speakers who have preceded me this afternoon. We would support such a temporary measure, and note that I say "temporary"; I am quite sure that the leader of the opposition at any rate, and I think perhaps even the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), would agree that it should be a temporary measure, to bring our people relief from the present terrific high cost of living, until we can get things balanced down to a decent level.
I think that should be quite clear to anyone who wishes to understand. I hope the hon. gentleman who has not been able to understand it up to the present time will read it once again. Before going further I should like to express appreciation on behalf of the Lloydminster united municipal hospital district to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and the government upon the grant that has been made to assist in the extension of that hospital. I have paid taxes to support this hospital for a number of years and I believe it has rendered good service. Because of an increase in population the hospital was not large enough and for a number of years the matter of providing additional accommodation has been a headache for the hospital board.
Recently the hospital district provided a certain amount of money, as did the provincial governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan as well as the dominion government. The new hospital wing was opened officially by the Hon. Mr. Bentley who sat here to my right between 1945 and 1949. During the official opening he stated that it seemed rather strange but most encouraging that people on both sides of the meridian, those who supported a C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan and those who supported a Social Credit government in Alberta, as well as representatives of the dominion Liberal government, were able to work together to build that hospital wing. Again I want to express the appreciation of the Lloydminster municipal hospital board to the minister and the government.

The Address-Mr. Fair
Another matter that has created considerable discussion over the years is the provision of pensions for those over 70 years of age without a means test. While this legislation has not yet been introduced we hope that it will be introduced, as indicated in the speech from the throne. At the last session we passed legislation providing pensions for those between 65 and 70 years of age but with a means test. I hope that in the near future, as in the case of those over 70 years, that means test will be removed.
I am not satisfied with the amount of the pension because when compared with the value of the dollar in 1939 the $40 is now worth only $21.16. Anyone who has visited the stores lately will readily realize that $21.16 or even $40 is not sufficient today to maintain any reasonable standard of living. As a result of government policy in the past number of years-this government has been in office since 1935-the savings which many people had accumulated have now largely melted away, with the result that they must rely on their friends or obtain assistance through pensions or by other means. In my opinion that should not be allowed to continue in a country like Canada. In addition to the legislation to be brought in this session providing for a pension without a means test for those over 70 years of age, I hope that in the near future we will have other legislation increasing the rate of pension to a reasonable amount.
Another matter with which I should like to deal is the basic pension for war veterans and the war veterans allowance. I think that disabled veterans have a moral and legal right to a much larger pension than they are enjoying at the present time. Nearly a year ago the Canadian Legion presented a brief to the government and last session we had a special committee on veterans affairs. Up until that time this committee has always done a good job, but I cannot agree with those who voted last session against increasing the basic pension and the war veterans allowance. They had a responsibility to veterans which I do not feel they carried out. Of course they were only carrying out government policy.
A disabled veteran must live with his disability twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and fifty-two weeks a year. In the past he offered his services to protect our freedom. Those of us who stayed at home enjoyed security and there were many Canadians who took advantage of the war profits that were available. I feel it is now up to us to do our duty towards the disabled veteran. There is no question about this country being able to afford the 33J per cent increase for which the Legion asked.


In my opinion that request was most moderate and should have been granted without any bickering, either by the committee or by members of the house. In the past we have sent millions of dollars' worth of goods to other countries and at the present time we are spending billions of dollars on defence for a war that may or may not come. It is true that at the last session a supplementary estimate of $2 million was brought down to provide an allowance for single men with a disability of 35 per cent or better and for married men with a 45 per cent disability or better, but the records show that this allowance will better the financial position of only 6,000 out of the 165,000 who are affected.
That was not approved by the committee. At least there was no unanimous vote. I believe all opposition members and some of the government members, who recognized their responsibility and acted upon that recognition, voted against the proposal. I hope they will see to it this time that this is continued as time goes on.
When these pensioners go to the store to buy things they have to pay the full price, and to a very great extent the price is the responsibility of the government. I shall deal with that later on. Pensioners receiving old age pensions are not eligible to partake of the benefit arising from the $2 million supplement. They must be unemployed, must be unemployable, and in addition must furnish proof that their disability is a factor contributing to their unemployment. Those things bring about a vicious means test which is no part or parcel of disability pensions. That was ruled out many years ago and should continue to be ruled out, but because of government policy it has cropped up again. Apparently they want the money for some other purpose or perhaps they want to keep the veterans on a lower standard of living so that they will be easier to deal with. Such a practice should not be carried on.
More sympathetic treatment should also be accorded to these veterans when considering the question of old age pensions. The veterans affairs committee of last session recommended that this matter be brought forward again at this session. I understand that no committee is being set up but there is nothing whatever to hinder the government from introducing legislation, or regulations if they want to, to increase those pensions.
With respect to the war veterans allowance recipients, there was a demand last session that something be done about that also. At the present time single men are receiving $40 and married men $70. The request of the Legion was that these amounts be

increased to $50 and $100 respectively. If that had been done they would now be receiving the equivalent of $26.45 for a single man and $52.90 for a married man in terms of 1939 dollar value. I believe that this matter should be taken care of during the present session. Cold weather is already approaching and the suffering of these old veterans is continuing. It is our responsibility to see that something is done, and I wonder what the members of the house will do about it. Will they discharge that responsibility?
There is another group not already mentioned, the old soldier settlers. They bought land away back in 1919 and 1920, and since, and I believe there are nearly a thousand who are still struggling to pay off their debts. I understand the amount still owing is slightly over $1 million. A rough computation will indicate that if each citizen of Canada contributed 7 cents these debts could be wiped out entirely. We had a vote on this question last session and I was very sorry to see that some members voted against providing relief. However, if there is any hon. member of the house who will refuse to pay his 7 cents at this time I will dig into my limited savings and pay the 7 cents for him. I hope something may be done during this session.
One of the main questions facing the government at the present time is that of inflation, with which is very closely associated the high cost of living. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) dealt with it the other day, and he made a speech which to many people was surprising. He dealt with the British Labour party's pamphlet entitled, "This Cost of Living Business". I am not going to deal with that now. It does not concern us particularly. We could make quite a lot of comment on it if we wished to but I am not going to take the time now. The Prime Minister dealt with the legislation that the government intends to introduce at the present time. At page 35 of Hansard he said, with respect to the fixing of resale prices:
This problem has been carefully studied by a committee appointed to do that job, a committee composed of highly respected persons felt to be qualified to examine the problem objectively and to make a report upon it. They have done so, and that report is now before parliament, but I am sure that when any legislation based upon that report is being considered there will be arguments pro and con the probable effects of Interfering with this so-called light of the producer of an article to determine the price at which it will be resold to the ultimate consumer.
Then he goes on to say:
I am not sure myself that that is not already contrary to provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, because the act defines a combine as a conspiracy between two or more persons to fix the resale price of commodities.
The Address-Mr. Fair I hope the Prime Minister will get together with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and settle the point as to whether such price fixing is really a combine. As has already been pointed out this afternoon, if legislation is brought down and passed I am not sure that it will be used, because we remember that only a couple of years ago the government had a report of an inquiry as to certain people who were supposed to be guilty, and the report was pigeonholed for many months before being brought out into the open. Let us hope this legislation will have some effect. I am not sure about it, but it would appear that there are some people who have a feeling of guilt because since the speech from the throne was made on the 9th of this month, a week ago yesterday, three stores in Hamilton have brought down prices and have openly announced through the press that they are breaking contracts with their suppliers. An article in the Ottawa Journal of October 13 states that a Montreal drug firm is seeking an injunction over price fixing. Another article in the Ottawa Citizen of the 16th of October states that Toronto stores are cutting the price on electrical appliances, and an article in the Ottawa Journal of October 15 is headed, "Hose Costs Run Down". Nylons of a certain grade are coming down in price.


Mr. Johnston:: No garters.


Robert Fair: One of my friends says, "no garters" but I do not think that is the whole explanation. Apparently certain people feel that there is a little guilt connected with the prices that have been in existence, and I hope that the government will not stop until they do something worth while with respect to this matter. The Prime Minister went on to give a list of articles and their prices at Washington and Ottawa. I was very glad to have the Prime Minister make that comparison because certain people in Canada, many of whom should know better, have been charging the primary producers of this country, the farmers, with being responsible for the increased cost of living. Many of them know very much better but in order to distract attention from their own businesses and themselves they try to place the blame on the farmers. At page 38 of Hansard for October 15 the Prime Minister went on to say:
There is no doubt that prices are high.
There is no doubt that certain sectors of our population are feeling some hardship, but not all sectors. In spite of high prices the average wage paid in our manufacturing industries will buy more today than it did before the war.
The prices that our farmers are getting for their produce, in spite of the fact that they are paying higher prices for things they have to buy, Is giving them a larger share of the national income at this time than ever before.

The Address-Mr. Fair
Now, that is a whopper of a misstatement, but I am not charging the Prime Minister with responsibility lor it. Some of the experts, perhaps in his office or some of the departments, gave him that information which, in my opinion, is entirely incorrect. I shall deal with that when I have finished this quotation.
I am not saying that is not as it should be. I notice an hon. member shaking his head but let me say that he is not the only one who knows the farmers in this country. I know farmers in various parts of Canada and I know for a fact that at the present time they are getting a larger share of the national income than they ever got before. I am not saying that they should not. I am not saying that they are getting too much. I know that they work hard for what they get and I feel that the prices they are getting under present price levels are not too high and that it would not be fair to try to roll them back.
Had the Prime Minister insisted upon getting proof of those statements, he would have found that the dominion bureau of statistics records show that during the period 1915 to 1919 the farmers of Canada, comprising at that time 33 per cent of the population, received one-third of the national income. What did the farmers of Canada, who comprised about 25 per cent of the population, receive in 1950? Yesterday I called the proper official in the dominion bureau of statistics and what do you think his reply was? They received 9-95 per cent of the national income. The 25 per cent living on the farm received 9-95 per cent of the national income. If the Prime Minister had gone a little further, perhaps he would have found out that the other people in Canada are receiving more for their dollar today than they did back in 1939. The Prime Minister had this to say:
... I have here figures showing the estimate of food quantities which one hour's work of a manufacturing employee at average wages would buy in certain periods. While the first item is not disappointing, it does show that in October, 1939, an hour's work would purchase more sirloin beef than it does at the present time.
I am just going to use the figures for 1939 and June 1951. The figures are as follows:
			June
		1939	1951
Sirloin beef 	1-6	1-1Bacon 	lbs.	1-3	1-7Eggs 	1-2	1-6Potatoes 	228	39-1Bread 	7-3	9-9Tea 	[DOT]7	i-iCoffee 	lbs.	i-i	i-iSugar, granulated ...	lbs.	6-8	90Butter 	1-4	1-7
At the same time had the Prime Minister gone a little further with his research he could have found out that in both 1919 and 1920 an eight foot McCormick-Deering horse-drawn binder could have been purchased for 
$190. At that time the farmers were receiving for itheir wheat $2.63 per bushel which meant that it would take 72 bushels to purchase the binder. In 1951 when we were receiving approximately $1.90 for our wheat that same binder would cost us $640, so it would take 337 bushels of wheat to buy it. Those figures show that it takes four and one-half times as many bushels of wheat ito buy a binder today as it did back in 1919 or 1920.
Then perhaps I should place on record a statement made by the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which I am taking the liberty of quoting from the text of the Prime Minister's address. He had this to say:
Food prices are not high in relation to other prices or in relation to wage rates or to the profits being made by industry. Most food, in terms of the hours of work required to purchase it, is cheaper than it has ever been. When we compare average hourly earnings in manufacturing industries with average prices of staple food products, this fact is borne out.
There are many other things contained in this address with which I do not intend to deal. I believe the figures I have given, and the statement of the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, should be sufficient. In spite of these things, we can look back over the crop years 1946 to 1949 and see the sort of deal the farmers got under the British wheat agreement. Again let me emphasize that this was a deal between the Canadian government and the British government. The wheat board must not be blamed for the making of that agreement. The farmers lost approximately $311 million in this deal, even though they got that much talked about $65 million from the government. Instead of only that amount being taken from the treasury, an additional $311 million should have been taken because under the agreement the wheat was a gift to the British people by the Canadian government on behalf of the Canadian people. Full payment to those who supplied the grain should have been made, the federal treasury supplying the difference between class II price and those prices obtained under the agreement.
Many so-called experts have dealt with this matter. In the issue of Maclean's magazine for May 1 there is such an article, and in the Edmonton Journal I have noticed an article recently by R. J. Deachman. He has put out his shingle as an economist and has been raising a little cain about this $65 million payment. From the tenor of these articles I think we might say of the authors, as we can of many others, that a little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. They are, deliberately

or otherwise, trying to fool the Canadian people. In addition we find there has been quite a drop in hog prices recently, and had I sufficient time I should like to deal with that. It has been shown that, from the middle of September until about October 6, Ontario hog producers have lost nearly a million dollars as the result of a price slump. There are many other things with which I might deal, but time will not permit. We fully expect that there will be another session next spring, at which time we shall be able to deal with some of these matters.
The government has undertaken to prevent inflation. Almost a year ago they decided they would curtail bank loans. Then they were going to restrict credit. That means that the- purchase of many necessary items has been restricted. Many people who wanted to buy cars, refrigerators, washing machines and many other things have not been able to purchase them because of that restriction of credit. Then they said that another way to get the money out of the people's hands would be to increase taxes. They increased the sales tax from 8. per cent to 10 per cent, a 25 per cent increase; and the excise tax was boosted from 15 per cent to 25 per cent on many items. The result has been extremely hard on the Canadian people. Many of us complain bitterly about the price of our cars and other things we have to buy. The result of the sales tax and the excise tax on the poor man's car-which is the kind I drive; it is a little Chevrolet-amounts to about $700. In addition we have many other taxes that are levied on parts coming in from the United States.
The government are passing measures to bring about a reduction in the cost of living and the prevention of inflation, and in my opinion they themselves are the big offenders. It is about time that change in their program was made effective. Then they have increased interest rates. After doing all of these things -most of which are detrimental, in my opinio11-they ask the people to work harder and to produce more. Increased production, provided that other suitable measures were also applied, would be a good way of preventing inflation and bringing down the cost of living, but with the methods applied by the government up to the present time I do not think they can expect particularly effective results.
While dealing with wheat I had intended to suggest that even though we have the wheat growers, the farmers, in general being treated as they have in the past-and the government has been made aware of that condition time after time-we still find that the international wheat agreement means a loss to the Canadian wheat grower of an average of, I would say, 40 cents per bushel. In my opinion that
The Address-Mr. Fair is not good business. I am not for a moment, however, suggesting that an international wheat agreement is not a good thing. I voted for it, as did other members of this group. But an international wheat agreement or any other agreement is not good enough unless you make provision in the price program for changes that may occur in the price of the things the farmer has to buy. While the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) tried, when the international wheat agreement was before the house, to have the government provide for a fluctuating price that could be brought about by tying the price of wheat sold to other countries to the price of goods in those countries, he was not successful. Indeed, the government never even took the trouble, as far as I know, to investigate that proposal. But had that been done it would not make any difference whether the price of wheat was high or low, for it would bring back to our country the same quantity of goods from other countries.
In connection with the price of wheat that is turned over by the wheat board, on government instructions, as government policy-the wheat turned over to millers for milling into flour for Canadian consumption-that price again is set at a figure the same as that for the wheat sold under the international wheat agreement. In my opinion, it is adding insult to injury to have that amount stolen from the farmer; because that is exactly what is taking place. On every bushel of wheat turned over to the millers by the Canadian wheat board for Canadian consumption the farmers are losing 40 cents on an average. While I have on many occasions asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) what those wheat growers are getting in return, he has never-nor has any other member of the government-even made an attempt to give me a satisfactory answer to that question. I feel that until some of those injustices are remedied, things will not be very good.
I had intended to deal with the question of income tax, particularly as it relates to farmers, and its administration in the prairie provinces, but I see that time will not permit me to do so. However, there may be another opportunity when I shall be able to deal with that matter.
In dealing with some of the things that might be done at the present time I am going to quote six points which have been placed on the record by my leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). They can be found at pages 54 and 55 of Hansard of Monday last. Before doing that, however, I should point out that the Prime Minister is finally realizing that certain things can be

The Address-Mr. Fair done; and those are things we have advocated for the past sixteen years. As reported at page 41 of Hansard he had this to say:
The price level cannot be held fixed in a free economy, although it is disturbing to have it move far in either direction. Deflation, when it comes about, is almost as painful as inflation.
Then he makes this admission:
The ideal state would be a proper balance between purchasing power and supplies;-
I am glad the Prime Minister has got along even that far in recognizing the way the economy of our country should operate. He continues:
-but none of us-except perhaps the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore)-has the formula by which to maintain that proper balance at all times.
The hon. member for Peace River made those six points to which I have made reference, and I am just going to give a short .quotation from them:
1.	Overhaul of the taxation structure.
I have perhaps dealt sufficiently with that point, and I see that my time has almost expired.
2.	We advocate holding out every possible inducement to all sections of Canadian society to increase their productive efforts. We believe that the greatest single factor in bringing down the general price level is a plenteous supply of consumer goods for home consumption. Let me make that clear; a plenteous supply of consumer goods for home consumption, not piled up in somebody's inventory, not produced to send to some other place, but a plenteous supply of consumer goods for home consumption.
3.	We believe we should couple with a wise taxation policy a system of consumer price discounts or subsidies on selected items which enter into the daily needs of the majority of Canadian people.
I am not going to deal further with that matter at this time. It has been enlarged upon by the hon. member for Peace River.
4.	Our fourth suggestion is that whenever it becomes necessary to expand the money supply of Canada the government should not add to the debt burden on the people by borrowing from the chartered banks. Rather the government should ask its own treasury and the Bank of Canada to create and hand over the new supply of purchasing power, interest free, to be spent into circulation by the government for the essential needs of the situation.
5.	The fifth proposal we make and which we think the government should adopt-I have pleasure in noting that the throne speech does mention certain measures that are to be taken at this session- is the institution of a wise policy of control of combines and monopolies so as to ensure a full measure of economic competition in Canada which we think is most important if we are to bring prices down to a reasonable level.
6.	As a sixth point we think there should be a wise and fair investment policy governing industrial expansion and resources development.
Time will not permit me to say any more at this time, but I hope that there will be another opportunity a little later on.


Mr. Raymond Bruneau (Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate my voice with those of the other members who have taken part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, in congratulating the mover and the seconder.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to subscribe to the noble thoughts expressed by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Cauchon) on national unity in this country.
As a representative of a constituency where two great races live side by side, it is heartening to hear harmony and understanding preached on the very floor of the house. How proud we are, therefore, to be able to march under the banner of a leader who has undertaken the forging of a link between French and English-speaking citizens.
(Text):
While listening to the seconder of the address, the hon. member for Yukon-Mac-kenzie River (Mr. Simmons), it was comforting to hear that probably never before in history has our country had the natural resources at her disposal for becoming a great nation that she has at the present time, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier that the twentieth century would be that of our country.
One of the main items under study during the current session will be a measure to provide increased security for our older citizens through payment of pensions. I would like to see my government study the possibility of including with old people the invalids, the needy ones who are incapable of providing for themselves. We have a duty to assist those whom nature did not favour, and I think that the people we would include in our security program would be forever grateful. In voicing this opinion I am sure I also voice that of a good majority of the members of this house. A lot of the cases that are brought to our attention are those of people who through mental or physical deficiency see themselves at the mercy of charitable institutions or relatives to ensure a meagre subsistence. Life is already gloomy enough for them and I should think that if we were to bring a ray of sunshine and some hope into their existence, we would have accomplished something.
In reading in the speech from the throne that "our national effort to provide for the security of our country in co-operation with other peace-loving nations continues to receive the constant attention of the ministers", it is most comforting to know that we are doing our utmost, in these troubled

times, to achieve peace through preparedness. We are giving lull support to our Canadian forces in Korea who are upholding the ideals of the United Nations which have pledged themselves to defeat aggression, and we can be proud of the fact that following the deliberations at the NATO conference held in this house the nations are steadily increasing their combined strength in their determined effort to maintain true principles of democracy throughout the world. Let us hope that before too long Greece and Turkey will join the north Atlantic alliance, thus reinforcing the position of the free world, so close to the iron curtain, in the vicinity of the Mediterranean world where at present serious trouble is brewing. I could not help but think how fortunate we are to be living in a free country, where our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) can go about without bodyguards, while every one of us here was stunned to hear yesterday of the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, who paid the supreme sacrifice for upholding those same principles of democracy which we are doing our best to achieve.
Another item of great importance under study will be the rising cost of living. We are given the assurance by the Prime Minister that every measure will be taken to counteract inflation. I am sure that no effort will be spared to make possible a stabilization of our economy.
As regards the seaway and the power phases of the St. Lawrence project recently discussed in Washington by the President of the United States and our Prime Minister, I am sure this question is of vital importance to the security as well as the economy of the two countries, and let us hope that this project, long debated, will be implemented. While dealing here with a question relative to the Department of Transport, I wish to tell the minister of that department how grateful the members of the Hawkesbury flying club are for the beacon he has provided them with for the purpose of night flying in the region.
I should like at this point to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) to have the people of his department undertake a study of the possibility of re-opening the two airports of St. Eugene and Pendleton in my riding. With the tenseness of the present international situation there is no doubt that these two airfields, ideally situated in the Ottawa valley, could best be used for the training of our airmen.
The Address-Mr. Bruneau
One other question not mentioned in the speech from the throne but which I believe is of great importance is the decentralization of industry. With the ever-growing possibility of a third world war I am sure our heavy industries, concentrated as they are in the main cities around the land, would suffer a terrible blow from air attacks and our national economy could be wrecked in no time. For that reason I am sure it would be wise to spread industry across our vast continent where there is certainly no scarcity of space. Prescott county, ideally situated on a flat stretch of land, half way between the two most important cities in Canada, the capital, Ottawa, and the metropolis, Montreal, offers immense possibilities for the establishment of such industries.
When we study the recommendations submitted by the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, I should like to see a debate initiated as to the suitability and opportunity of implementing a program, or setting up a department, for the purpose of helping our young people in Canada. We have great possibilities in our country if our citizens of tomorrow are properly coached and allowed to carve out for themselves a future suited to their aptitude in different fields of learning. We have able young men who, given a chance, would be in a better position to help themselves and the country at large if they had the means at their disposal to improve along the lines for which they are best suited. Such a department already exists in different European countries and has proved to be of very great importance.
There is also another group of people in our country to whom we could lend a helping hand. I have in mind the agricultural class. The main industry in my riding is dairy farming, and for some time now I have received quite a number of postal cards calling to my attention the danger of large imports of vegetable oils for the manufacturing of substitutes for dairy products, thus reducing the yearly income of farmers. I would ask the government to adopt, at its earliest convenience, the necessary measures to give the dairy industry sufficient protection, by levying a duty on the import of such oils.
Keeping in mind the implementation of a program of security for our old people and invalids while studying the possibility of helping and preparing our citizens of tomorrow, let us spare no energy in developing the natural resources with which Providence has endowed us to such an extent. Let us also go all-out on a preparedness
130

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross program, thus enabling the free nations of the world to continue to enjoy this liberty so long and dearly sought after by the unfortunate people now living under a regime of terror behind the iron curtain. Our country, young in years but rich in promise and realization, has already taken a firm attitude in her determination to see that truth prevails and freedom is spread to the four corners of the earth. This is an achievement of which I am sure every one of us here has reason to be proud.
We have barely started a new session and I am sure that our deliberations, carried on in this house in the spirit of good will under the guiding light of democracy, will be those of a government of the people, for the people, by the people.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer a few remarks in this debate on the address in reply. First I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons). In my opinion they both made excellent presentations on behalf of their constituencies and the nation as a whole.
In the speech from the throne mention is made first of the fact that our country is now being honoured by the visit of Their Royal Highnesses The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh. It then proceeds to comment upon the public satisfaction in the speedy recovery of His Majesty the King. In these matters I am sure there is universal accord throughout the nation.
It then states that the primary reason for summoning parliament for a second session in the present year is to consider a measure to provide increased security for our older citizens, through the payment of pensions. On this general principle there is agreement among all parties. I should imagine, however, that the method of financing may become somewhat controversial, and there may be some reference to the hardship experienced by the smaller and less fortunate provinces in taking care of those citizens between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine years. I trust the contributory system shall always be kept before us in our deliberations when legislation in respect of this important measure is before us.
I was disappointed that at this session, with the matter of inflation of such great importance, there is not to be the introduction of a budget. Under this condition it may be difficult for us to thoroughly debate matters affecting various government departments. I was impressed by the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he said that this session would be known in history as the inflationary


An hon. Member:: They may get more.


James Arthur Ross: I think they will. However, I would point out that the initial payment for this crop was reduced by 20 per cent over the initial payment of a year ago. While they were making that reduction, the United States government increased their payment by nineteen cents.


An hon. Member:: The initial price was the same.


James Arthur Ross: It has been reduced. I want to support what was said by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) about the marketing of wheat. There have been two bad years in the west for which no one is to blame, but I think something should be done about grading and storage. Just before I left I saw a copy of a wire which had been sent to the elevator companies by the general manager pointing out that grain should not be purchased even though they were able to send a sample in and get certain grades because when the grain came forward the government officials were setting it back one or more grades. You can understand the great difficulties that arise from such practices. I support the request made by the hon. member for Lake Centre that an advance payment should be made on grain properly stored on the farm. This practice has been followed quite satisfactorily for a number of years by the great nation to the south. As I pointed out, while our government has decreased the initial payment by twenty cents per bushel, even though our price is much below theirs,

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross the United States government has seen fit under a guaranteed loan to increase the price to the producer by nineteen cents per bushel over the previous year. Farmers in the United States are able to obtain a loan of $2.18 per bushel on this year's crop for grain properly inspected and stored. They are also allowed storage rates of a cent or a cent and a fraction per bushel per month up until next April. At that time they can let the government take over the grain at that price or they can sell it if the market should be above that price. That has worked out very well and I think such a plan should be followed in this country.
That loan of $2.18 per bushel is considered to be 90 per cent of the parity price for wheat stored in that country There is a complete lack of parity for our western farmers. Under our set-up the government dictates what the cereals shall be sold at. I understand that somewhat the same situation exists in the dairying industry. At the same time there is no control over the prices of the things these people must purchase. According to the bureau of statistics farm wages have increased fourfold since 1941. Some people still find it necessary to use binder twine, and I find that the price of that has increased fivefold since 1942. Farm machinery and many of the other items absolutely necessary to farm production have doubled or more in cost during those years. There is no parity for these farm producers. We should be following the same practice followed in the great nation to the south. I support wholeheartedly the request made by the hon. member for Lake Centre that a similar system be instituted for the grain producers of at least the prairie provinces. There is not as much wheat produced in the east; the grain is not sold through the wheat board, and therefore they receive a better price.
There is another matter I should like to take up with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Many people in the west are interested in this. I do not know whether any solution can be found to take care of the frozen and low-grade grain from last year's crop which is cluttering up our storage capacity in the west at this time. The fact that a transport controller has been appointed is all to the good, but there seems to be a difference in the statements he is issuing, those being issued by Mr. Mclvor of the wheat board, and the statements issued by the heads of the pool in the prairie provinces.
Another matter I should like to refer to is this carrying charge of six cents per bushel which has been so confusing since it was announced last June. Many people have felt that if this could be made under the international wheat agreement it should

have been possible under the original agreement. I have not been able to find out just exactly what it covers and I should like to have an explanation on the record by the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the benefit of these producers.
During the wheat debate last session I asked that a royal commission be set up to study and report on the grading, marketing and storage of Canadian grain, both here and abroad. During the debate on the $65 million payment I asked that a commission be set up- and my leader made the same request-to determine the losses suffered by the farmers under the agreement, and what the final settlement might have been.
We have had many royal commissions in the past, some of them quite a few years ago, but considering the complex conditions that exist today I submit the government should appoint a royal commission to make a study and report to parliament on the grading, marketing and storage of Canadian grain in Canada and abroad. I again make that personal appeal to the government. Wheat is a most important item in Canadian exports and it cannot lightly be set aside.
I said that I would be brief, but as we are not to have a budget debate I realized that I might find it difficult to debate matters pertaining to various departments, some of which are quite urgent. I wanted to take advantage of this debate to make an appeal on behalf of the veterans and the Canadian Legion whose requests deserve the consideration of this government. I want to point out that very difficult situation, and also the situation in which a great portion of the farm population of Canada now finds itself. It is a situation that is getting rapidly worse. I am one of those people who believe there is racketeering going on in our nation today. Never at any other time in our history have more big businesses been running rampant and fixing their charges as they please. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said during the last session, they are getting all set for a period of control. I think it is a most unhealthy situation when a very important section of the country is tied down under control as to the prices of what they sell, yet have to buy their machinery of production under such a set-up. I am sure that in certain cases deliberate racketeering is going on. I make this appeal to the government at this time through the only medium we may have during this session.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents may I be permitted to introduce a subject which is not only vital to the constituency I represent but

also to the whole economy of the Dominion of Canada. Before doing so, however, may I be permitted to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is gratifying and pleasing to all in this group that these members have been chosen by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) from the largest group on the opposition side of the house but which of course is loyal to the Prime Minister. Caucuses of our group are usually held around the dinner table with the full knowledge and consent of our distinguished leader, and the hon. member for Beauhar-nois (Mr. Cauchon) and the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons) have not only distinguished themselves in our caucuses but also in this house. May I express to them my very best wishes for their continuing success in serving the public of Canada.
The matter to which I wish to refer is what has been lightly referred to in this house as "the Windsor situation". First of all I think we should determine some of the geography of that part of the country as well as the economics. I have the unique distinction of representing the only constituency in Canada which is Wholly and directly south of the United States, in that Detroit aind other parts of the United States, including the state of Michigan, are practically on three sides of it-
The industries which operate there are chiefly the automobile industry comprising the Ford Motor Company, the Chrysler Motor Company, a large plant of General Motors, and some fifty or more feeder plants which supply parts and accessories to the three main industrial concerns. These feeder plants are important in their own right. They are large, and they employ a great many people. Referring only to a few, there is the Kelsey Wheel Company, the Auto Specialties Manufacturing Company and the Canadian Automotive Trim Company and others. There are over fifty of them. Many of them are in my constituency. Many of them are in the constituency of Essex East. Our industrial life is also enriched by the fact that we have the largest pharmaceutical industry in the British, empire. I believe the concentrated industries in that line constitute in the whole the largest group in the British empire manufacturing drugs and allied products. We also produce chemicals. We have large salt deposits from which come caustics, chlorine and other products shipped to all parts of Canada.
The Detroit river provides easy access to the area. It has been termed, and I believe
The Address-Mr. D. F. Brown rightly, the busiest inland waterway in the world so far as river travel is concerned. We have always considered that at the peak of the season there is never a moment when there is not a lake freighter in view plying the waters of the river. The community is also serviced by several railroads including the Canadian National, Michigan Central, Canadian Pacific, Chesapeake and Ohio, Wabash, and also the Essex Terminal Railroad, providing a terminal operation. Access is obtained to Detroit and the United States by means of a bridge and a tunnel, over and under the river.
It is not my purpose to quarrel with certain policies the government has adopted, because in our part of the country we are prepared to do that which is considered best for the welfare of Canada as a whole. We regret that we sometimes have to suffer, but we are not coming here crying for assistance. We merely ask for an opportunity to take our place in the economic life of our country. The situation in Windsor is indicated by the records of the unemployment insurance benefit claims, which would indicate that on September 10 last, due to policies which have been inaugurated, there were 4,312 males unemployed. Five days later, on September 15, 1951, that figure had dropped to 3,035 males. On September 25 it had risen again to 3,488 males, and as of October 6 last the figure stood at 4,249 males.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a rather sizeable number in a community of about 125 or perhaps 150 thousand people, including the environs. The figure of 4,300 on September 10 dropped to 3,000 because the unemployed went into the surrounding country to reap the bountiful harvest which has been ours this year. They have now returned to the city, and are again asking for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. One company, the Ford Motor Company, did take back some of those who had been dismissed. This was due to the fact that contracts were obtained, not only from the export markets but for the manufacture of jet aeroplane wings, and accounts for about 900. It has been offset by a lay-off in the Chrysler plant of a considerable number, due to economic conditions. One must understand the automobile business to some extent to realize that the industry cannot switch from one commodity or vehicle to another without a great deal of expense, also considerable thought and effort. It takes many months of planning to put into operation the machines which are going to make new vehicles. It cannot be done hurriedly. On the other hand it is not

The Address-Mr. D. F. Brown practicable to think that all this expense and planning can be undertaken if there are to be no sizeable orders in return.
In leaving the unemployed I would not have it thought that there are no women unemployed. As of a week ago we had about 1,347 unemployed women claiming unemployment insurance benefits. During the summer, when we saw the position into which we were getting, conferences were held with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), and industrial and union leaders, as a result of which a committee was set up which has continued to hold meetings in the city of Windsor. This committee has been headed by our distinguished deputy minister of labour, Mr. Arthur MacNamara, who has given unstintingly of his time and ability in assisting that part of the country. Meetings have been held with representatives of the larger automobile plants, representatives of the unions, provincial members, representatives of the Department of Defence Production and the Department of Trade and Commerce. Other departments have also been represented. I have taken part in these meetings, too, with the exception of the last one which was held after this session had commenced. We are grateful to Mr. MacNamara for having gone to Windsor at great inconvenience to himself, and assisting us in the way he has, even if it has only been for the purpose of ascertaining the true position and the dissemination of that information amongst the public.
I know that the Department of Defence Production has also given special attention to the Windsor area, and has invited tenders from industrial firms for a variety of articles. I was glad to see that yesterday the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) was in Windsor when the first war truck came off the Chrysler production line yesterday. If orders for more trucks followed it would help us to maintain our standard of living and our dignity, because, as I have said, we are not asking for any favours. We merely want opportunities.
It may not be generally known, but the Department of Defence Production has allotted contracts or tenders for the following list of items:
18 passenger busses (40-passenger size)
Spares for ambulances
Spares for General Motors vehicles
Drugs and chemicals
370 storage tanks
835 trailers
12.000	aprons for use in food handling 22,700 pillows
3,740 frying pans
3.000	hospital mattresses 23,015 bed mattresses 100 spray guns

80 pressure cups
2,400 ladles
65,000	uniform vests cotton
18 tractors
15 pumps
110 work benches	I
Spare part stores Chrysler motors
Spare part stores General Motors vehicles
To many hon. members this may seem to be a sizeable amount of war orders, but having in mind the potential ability of that community to produce it means comparatively few working days. In fact it will not mean that any of those unemployed will be restored to the payroll. For one reason or another we are not in a position to compete with low cost areas where the standard of living is not the same as ours or where the standard of pay is not the same as ours. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to make the most, not only of the manpower ability but of the machinery and equipment we have for the production of war materials, then it will be necessary for the Department of Defence Production to divide the country into sections and invite tenders in particular areas, only, so that there will be no competition between one area and another. Otherwise, it would appear to me that there will be a great deal of machinery and equipment lying idle when it should be busy. There will be a great deal of "knowhow", ability, and capacity for planning throughout this country lying stagnant.
I am glad to note that the federal government is doing something for those who are now unemployed. May I say that it has been the experience of the Department of Labour that the people, the labourers or the artisans, who have once lived in that part of the country do not and will not move away. That situation, of course, is subject to some exceptions. There may be a few who will want to go away and who will go of their own volition, but generally it has been the experience that they will not move, by their own choice, to any other part of the country. I do not say that boastfully, but merely mention it as a fact that has been established by the department.
I am happy to see that the federal government has joined with the provincial government in inaugurating a vocational training class or classes for those who are unemployed. The federal government is now paying 75 per cent of the cost of those classes, which will be held largely in the W. D. Lowe Vocational School, probably one of the finest vocational schools of its type in the Dominion of Canada.
We all realize that throughout the length and breadth of this country there is a considerable shortage of skilled workmen not only for the factories but in the building

trades. It is therefore encouraging to see this joint action being taken. I am sure it will be welcomed by those citizens of the city of Windsor and its environs who at the present time happen to be unemployed.
There is a desire on the part of the department, I am sure, that advantage should be taken of the opportunity that is being given to these people. I should like to add my appeal to those workmen who are unemployed to accept this chance given to them by the federal and the provincial governments to improve themselves and to enlarge their abilities, so that when the opportunity is presented they will be able to accept positions of a higher grade than those they had before.
These classes are going to specialize. The first is a machine shop class. It is true that the automobile industry needs men trained in work other than that to which they have been accustomed. Many of them, of course, are specialists in one set of operations in the factory; but there are many other opportunities which may be available to them, and these classes are providing that opportunity. One other subject in which instruction is to be given is sheet metal work. As I pointed out, one factory has obtained a large contract for the assembly of wings for jet-propelled airplanes. This training will be invaluable to persons engaged in that work. The third class will be in draftsmanship, which is so highly important not only in the automobile industry but throughout all mechanized endeavour.
I have pointed out that it is exceedingly difficult to persuade persons who have lived in that part of the country to take positions in other parts of the country. We have had it pointed out that jobs are available in one part or another. If I may, I should like to add my appeal to that of the Department of Labour. I would suggest to these people that, as a temporary measure only, they take jobs in other parts of the country which are most convenient to them, as an emergency measure only and for the winter, so that at the end of the winter season they may return. We hope by that time conditions will have righted themselves in our community, and that they may be re-engaged in the activity to which they are most desirous to return and live in the places where their families are, and which may be most agreeable to them.
Windsor is not a city which does not attempt to help itself. There is at the present time an active committee composed of representatives of the unions and of the businessmen, who are constantly conferring with contractors in the Detroit area. In Detroit
The Address-Mr. D. F. Brown there are a great many concerns which have large war orders and which are anxious to subcontract a great deal of their work to smaller feeder plants. This committee is canvassing that situation to see whether there are not some subcontracts that could be filled by the plants in our area and the goods shipped back to the United States. I am sure that there will be no difficulty with regard to customs either in Canada or in the United States. I would urge the Department of Defence Production to send a man to that area, representing that department, for the purpose of co-operating with the local committee not only in making a canvass but actually to do the footwork in seeing that contracts are obtained that would keep our machines busy. That will not be a selfish purpose, because if our machines are busy they are helping not only the economy of Canada but also helping our sister country by producing war materials which are so greatly needed at this time. This committee has kept the Department of Defence Production fully informed as to the kind of work that can be done in the Windsor area; and I might say that there is little by way of machine production that cannot be undertaken in that area.
With seasonal unemployment as we have it, we naturally will look to public works. I think the backlog of public works has been kept and catalogued for that particular purpose. As I pointed out, we have those who are unemployed. There is one project I should like to mention to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) or to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). I think that, strictly speaking, these remarks should be directed to the Minister of Transport. I should like to mention the fact that we have a station operated by the Canadian National Railways. I am not aware when it was built, but it is quite antiquated; it is very dingy, and it is not at all suitable for a thriving and industrious city such as we have. Sometime ago I was assured by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that the first station that would be built by the Canadian National Railways would be at Windsor. The time has arrived when that promise should be acted upon. We have unemployed craftsmen in the building industry, and now is the time to take plans out of mothballs and put them into operation by building an adequate station to serve that community. I would respectfully request the Minister of Transport to take that up at the earliest opportunity. I would like to advance the suggestion also that the Department of Defence Production appoint someone not only to look after public works, but someone familiar with the Windsor situation to work

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale with the United States authorities to help the local committee get some work from the United States.
There are some other subjects I should like to bring up at this time, but I see that my time has almost expired; therefore I will have to refer to them on another occasion. One of the subjects has to do with the basic pension that is paid to those who have offered their very lives to our country. I have had several meetings with the zone representatives of the Canadian Legion, who have formed a small committee. I have worked with them. We have some concrete suggestions. We have some definite ideas, and I regret that I shall have to wait for some other occasion to bring the matter before this house. However, in closing, Mr. Speaker, may I assure this house that once more we in the city of Windsor are not complaining about the activities of the government. We are merely asking for an opportunity to help ourselves and if given that opportunity I am sure we shall not be found wanting.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, it is nine years since I first had the opportunity of visiting the city of Ottawa. At that time it was in the capacity of a member, an A.C.2, to be exact, of His Majesty's air force. As I recall the experience of nine years ago when we first had the opportunity of visiting the houses of parliament and becoming familiar with the seat of government of this dominion of ours, I remember that my first impression was one of awe, because to a young man fresh from the prairies this beautiful building, the seat of government of our country, is an impressive sight. Since I have come back in a different capacity this fall hon. members can understand that my feeling of awe has been somewhat intensified. To have the task and the opportunity of addressing the House of Commons as a member of that group is something of course that we could never have anticipated in the wildest flights of fancy those nine years ago. I must say I do appreciate that privilege as a citizen of Canada.
It has been somewhat reassuring to me to discover as proceedings got under way that the mover (Mr. Cauchon) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as well as the seconder (Mr. Simmons), were making their first speeches. I think I am correct in that. Since I understood that they were making their first flights in this chamber it was rather reassuring to those of us who are new to the House of Commons to have to follow them in the debate on the speech from the throne.
As I begin I should like to say that we appreciate very much the kindness that has


been demonstrated to the new members by members of all parties. Every courtesy has been extended; advice has been tendered regardless of party, helping us to become oriented as quickly as possible into the mysteries and intricacies of parliamentary life.
During the past few days I have been intensely interested in following the speeches, because it becomes necessary for a new member to familiarize himself rapidly with the atmosphere of the chamber and of the proceedings of the House of Commons. I have listened to the speeches in an endeavour to get some clues as to the purpose of this traditional debate on the throne speech, and I have come to the conclusion that this debate offers four opportunities to the ordinary private member. First of all, it seems to me it gives the novice an opportunity to break the ice, to get his feet wet, as it were. Second, it seems to me it is an opportunity to extol the virtues as well as to express the particular needs of the home constituency, and later on in my remarks I may make some reference to that even at the risk of being regarded as somewhat parochial, as has already been mentioned here this afternoon. It seems obvious, too, that it is an opportunity to criticize the government constructively on the basis of its record of administration, or what we might call its sins of commission, and also on the basis of proposed business outlined in the speech from the throne, as well as on the basis of the things neglected and undone or what we might call the sins of omission. Such, it would appear, is the traditional function of members of His Majesty's loyal opposition. Finally, I have come to the conclusion that this debate provides the opportunity to create the atmosphere or establish the framework of reference for a particular session, of parliament. When we consider the magnitude of the issues being debated in this house the need for drawing the line somewhere becomes readily apparent.
When I rose to my feet I felt that nervous twinge that is peculiar to the beginner in any situation, but as I proceeded I found that the ice was broken and I began to feel more at ease. After all, I suppose one coming from the teaching profession should not feel too much out of place in the verbal barrage represented by this debate. Indeed I am reminded of the story of the learned professor who went with his class on a picnic. While the activities were under way one of the young ladies in the class got out beyond her depth, so that she was in danger of drowning. Instead of making a general call for help she called, "Help, Professor Snodgrass!" referring particularly to this old gentleman who, in

turn, dashed out and made the rescue. When he came back to where the young lady was reclining he became curious to know why she had called particularly for him. Upon being asked this question she replied, "Well, sir, I have sat in your class on many occasions and I have discovered no one who could go down deeper, stay down longer and come out drier than you." I feel if that is a requisite in making a speech in this debate, then perhaps I qualify.
It is scarcely necessary for me to labour the second point raised, that of extolling the virtues of one's constituency and expressing its particular needs. Brandon, Manitoba, has: been well represented in this chamber down through the years, from the time of Sir Clifford Sifton onward. And more recently I am sure all hon. members will agree when I say that the constituency of Brandon was most capably represented by the late Mr. J. E. Matthews. I have grown up in that constituency and, as a young man, in many respects came under the influence of Mr. Matthews. Undoubtedly some will conclude that in regard to political affiliation, his persuasion was not of the right kind in my case. But so far as good citizenship is concerned, and the demonstration of that quality of good citizenship, I owe a heavy personal debt to the example set by the late Mr. Matthews. I feel the honour conferred upon me in representing Brandon in the House of Commons is made more significant because of the fact that it is my opportunity to follow him.
If I were to refer to the requirements of my constituency I suppose I might re-echo many of the sentiments already expressed thus far in the debate. I can say heartily that I am in agreement with a system of old age pensions which, I understand, is the ostensible reason for the calling of this special session. The prevailing social realities, with an ageing population and the decreased support coming from the family as a result of basic changes in the family as a social institution, have made it almost inevitable that some legislation such as that about to be placed on the statute books this fall should be undertaken. In fact, such legislation is long past due. However, in- referring briefly to this topic I strongly urge the necessity for emphasizing the contributory principle, because I feel that in our society we are rapidly absorbing the idea of something for nothing. In Canada, where we depend upon responsibility and initiative for our continued progress, that is a highly dangerous spirit to establish.
The cost of living has been mentioned in debate. I can say that I am in agreement with what has been said by members of the 94699-10
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale official opposition. The cost of living arising from the inflationary trend stimulates almost the same attitude as one has toward sin- we're "agin" it. Everybody is "agin" it. Enough has been said about the economics of inflation. Time after time reference has been made establishing the point that the inflationary trend is most serious in Canada at the moment. Not only is it a general economic threat; it is also a situation wherein those who can least afford it suffer the most. There is thus established a feeling of insecurity and restlessness, because nothing destroys the confidence of the people more quickly than the dynamic and fluctuating financial situation produced by inflation. As has been said repeatedly, it can literally destroy a nation. I have been sent by my constituents to protest with all the vehemence I can muster this present dangerous inflationary trend in our economy.
Reference has been made to defence, and I feel I must deal with it in passing. In her international obligations, as well as from the necessity of protecting her own internal interests and affairs, Canada has been placed in a position where she has had to embark upon an extensive program of defence. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has outlined with eloquence a situation in which he has shown that, at the moment, Canada is totally unprepared to fulfil her obligations to the United Nations and to NATO.
This past summer I had the opportunity of witnessing at first hand some of the preparations for defence; or, one might say, judging from the sentiments expressed in this chamber, the lack of preparation taking place in the air force at the moment. I had the opportunity of participating in what is called the mobilization assignment training program, which was launched as recently as last August. Perhaps I should point out that prior to that experience I had always been interested in keeping in as close touch as possible with the air force, particularly in respect to some form of auxiliary training. At Brandon college, where it was my privilege to serve, year after year since the war we have asked for permission to form an auxiliary unit, only to be informed repeatedly that there were neither funds nor the facilities to do so. The Brandon flying club, too, has sought repeatedly for some form of participant training program only to be disappointed up to the moment. In the refresher training program in which I had the privilege of taking par-t I felt that here at last was something concrete. I found however that here, too, it was a scheme largely on paper, along with the Orenda engine and the increased number of squadrons. The idea is excellent, but it is still

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale only in the very early stages of development. I would hope to see it expand, because there are thousands of air force reserve personnel, aircrew in particular, who are only too anxious to take part in some form of parttime training which would keep them in a condition of preparedness and readiness.
In connection with the expansion of the air training facilities I am reminded that during world war II the constituency of Brandon was dotted with aerodromes, indeed so much so that it became popular in my constituency to refer to the late Mr. Matthews as "Airport Matthews". It is significant that up to the present time none of these stations have been reopened. I am informed by some of my constituents in Souris that strong representations have been made in regard to the facilities they have to offer, and I hope that in due course, as the training program is enlarged and developed, some consideration will be given to the facilities that exist in Brandon, not only as a matter of privilege but mainly because that locality offers the best flying weather and facilities available in any part of Canada.
Most speakers have referred to the difficulty faced by the veterans at the present time because of the increased cost of living, and reference has been made particularly to the attitude of the government with regard to the unemployability supplement. I should like to add my remarks to that discussion. There are several Legion branches in my constituency and, as is well known to all hon. members, they have been active in contacting their members in order to present their case. I think that case has been well established and I am ready to support any development which will bring about an equitable increase in pensions across the board rather than on the basis of the discriminatory means test that is being applied at the present time.
While federal aid for education has not been mentioned in the speech from the throne I want to say that I am heartily in favour of the gesture already made in this direction. Educational institutions across the country have responsibilities that cannot be met at the municipal or provincial level, and it is only reasonable to conclude that additional support will have to come from the federal government. That principle has been established and recognized. In our '[DOT]Hanging society our educational institutions are bearing the brunt of building the bulwarks of democracy. The institution of the family has lost some of its functions. It was expressed humorously to me just recently that we who are raising children 
take them to the schools when they are just able to toddle, put them on the doorstep and say, "learn them good," and that is about the last we see of them until they are grown into responsible, mature citizens. The old era of the three R's has disappeared and we now have a much more extensive and expensive program than was thought necessary at the time of confederation in 1867. The move in the direction of federal aid for education is the only means whereby this important public service can be adequately financed.
There is a matter relating particularly to Brandon that I should like to deal with at this time. It is well known that the unity of Canada has been endangered by problems of geographic and economic regionalism. It seems to me that at this time there is an excellent opportunity to carry out decentralization of industry. Because of historic as well as geographic factors, in the past industry has been concentrated largely in two provinces. It has now been demonstrated as a sound sociological principle that decentralization is the ideal thing for a country as large as Canada. If we need any further convincing we have it in the present military threat of atomic warfare. In passing I might mention that there are certain implications arising out of this subject relating to the St. Lawrence seaway project, about which we shall have more to say later.
Just a word with regard to the matter of the allocation of war contracts. I have a clipping from the Brandon Sun which I think will be interesting to hon. members, setting forth what we have to offer in the way of industrial and manufacturing facilities. This clipping reads:
Indication that Brandon industries will have an opportunity to participate in Canada's defence production was given here Thursday by G. D. Mallory, director of the small industries division of the Department of Defence Production.
Mr. Mallory stopped over in Brandon at the invitation of the defence production pool which has been organized in Brandon by a number of local industries. After touring some of the plants participating in the pool, he was guest at a luncheon meeting where he discussed defence production problems.
The Brandon pool is the only one of its kind in western Canada and one of two in the dominion, Mr. Mallory said. He informed the group that Crawford Gordon, co-ordinator of the production branch of the Department of Defence Production, has expressed particular interest in the local organization and has asked his staff to do everything possible to get a contract for the pool.
Explaining the functions of the department, he said that because the present situation may continue for ten years, the government is trying to obtain as many sources of supply as possible so that normal production may suffer a minimum of dislocation.
That seems to indicate that the government is aware of the facilities available in

Brandon, and we trust that something further will develop in regard to the decentralization of industry as the demands of our defence economy increase.
This afternoon the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) dealt with some problems to which I had intended to make reference and which are peculiar to the western farming areas. As they have already covered the points I had in mind I see no necessity to prolong my speech by repetition. For those who read Hansard or listen to the debates I just want to say that I support heartily what has been said this afternoon by both hon. members.
That is the second phase of the debate on the speech from the throne as I see it. Up to the present time I have not made any particular criticism, but I feel I would be remiss in my duty if I neglected to take advantage of this opportunity to do so. It seems to be the custom to blame the government for all the difficulties being faced by Canada at the present time, and I suppose that is only reasonable when you have a group responsible for carrying on the administration of the nation. I am going to limit my criticism to just one point, though many other points have been and could be raised.
As I see it, most of the difficulty results from government complacency. I think the presence of four new members on the opposition side of the house is ample and eloquent evidence of the reaction of the people in this regard. I would say it is a very definite indication of where the people of Canada generally place the responsibility and blame so far as the problems are concerned that we have been discussing during the course of the debate. Complacency of this nature is inevitable when you have a government that has been in office continuously for sixteen years. In the cloistered medieval atmosphere which is typical of this chamber it is easy to lose contact with -the people.


Mr. Fraser:: They are antique.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are all old enough for the Senate.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: More recently an overwhelming preponderance of government supporters in the house has tended to give the government the feeling that there is a divine right to rule, and also that the government members are a group of supermen who are the only people with the ability to run the affairs of this country. I can understand how that comes about. Applause has a rather heady influence, and as I remember from
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale my experience in old time revival meetings the more amens you get the longer you speak, and the more eloquent you become the further you go with your remarks. My impression, as I have tried to appraise the atmosphere of this chamber, is that such is the case here because there are plenty of amens from government backbenchers whenever the government states its case.
I do not know whether it is in order to make reference to the recent by-elections, but I should like to say that I found the same spirit of complacency and indifference in abundance at that time. For example, anyone who dared to oppose the government as a candidate in the field was almost laughed to scorn. Government supporters moved about extolling the virtues of the present administration and assuring the people that they never were more prosperous, happy and contented. We, on the other hand, pointed to the record of the administration with regard to inflation and the handling of the farmers' problems. We asked them to accept the government's challenge, namely, "who will stop us if we want to get away with it". The people responded in the manner that has already been indicated. I suggest -that is the severest censure that could possibly be made of the government. It comes right from the hearts of the people themselves and, let it be added, people of all political persuasions.
I have dealt extensively with local issues, and I know I shall be accused of parochialism, but I want to close by extending the scope of my re-marks briefly. At the present time we are facing the greatest crisis that this country and our western way of life have ever witnessed. I might express it in- these terms, that the honeymoon is over. It seems to me it is a matter of the survival of our way of life at the present time. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Lauren-t) struck the note that I am trying to establish at -this stage of my discussion when he said in- the opening remarks of a speech delivered at the autumn convocation of the university of Toronto in 1950:
It is a melancholy reflection on the times in which we live in that we should feel obliged to be concerned over the preservation of civilization.
If I may make a personal reference from my own experience, I came into the world in the closing stages of world war I and was duly designated a war baby. You will remember that the spirit prevailing at that time, as expressed by President Wilson, was that the world had been made safe for democracy. We of the war baby generation moved along through the glorious twenties, when it was thought that the golden age was just aroui'd the corner, until we struck the
140	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Poulin depression of 1929 when the war babies became the forgotten generation. Eventually we emerged out of the grim thirties and found ourselves the fighting generation. All these experiences have had their effect on myself and all others in the same age group. I think it is a melancholy reflection that we have to preoccupy ourselves with the thought that our western way of life is on the defensive at this time, just when we thought that we had reached the golden age. Our thinking is very heavily saturated with a doctrine that once prevailed in social scientific circles, the doctrine of social Darwinism or social evolution which was perhaps best expressed by Coue when he said: Every day in every way we are getting better and better.
We used to believe that was so. They used to teach us in school in the twenties that it was possible to build a perfect society; but we would have to have our heads very deeply in the sand to come to the conclusion today that just around the corner is peace, prosperity and happiness for everybody. To sum up the point, I should like to say that there must be no more soft living if we are to survive. I think it comes down to that basic issue. The pursuit of luxury must be abandoned. We have defence and economic commitments in many parts of the world that will demand the utmost sacrifice on the part of all Canadian citizens. Democratic citizenship demands the acceptance of obligations and responsibilities as well as liberties and privileges. Recently we have leaned too heavily upon the latter rather than upon the former. We have demanded our rights, privileges and liberties, and have forgotten that there are obligations and responsibilities involved in the maintenance of those privileges and freedoms.
Too frequently the suggestion we hear when faced with a problem is: what will the other fellow do about it, when the responsibility falls right on our own shoulders and the query should really be: what will I do about it? That of course leads to the basic problem, the spirit that motivates the democratic citizen; because after all, while we may provide for military strength, while we may provide for industrial strength, unless there is moral and spiritual fortitude to back up these materialistic things there is not much hope for the way of life we represent. We have received our heritage from the Hebrews, the Greeks and the Romans. That heritage has been transmitted to us through Christian civilization. I should like to submit that more than anything else at this time we need to cultivate the spirit within.

(Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate on the address. However, after hearing or reading most of the speeches delivered since the beginning of the session, I thought I might add my humble suggestions with respect to a particular point mentioned in the speech from the throne, and I refer to the high cost of living. Before going any further, may I say it is the only matter I shall deal with, and that very briefly.
It is with great pleasure and sincerity that I join all the previous speakers who have congratulated the mover of the address (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) for the splendid way in which they have fulfilled the task assigned to them.
(Text):
May I congratulate also the hon. member Who has just taken his seat upon his excellent speech.
(Translation):
The hon. members, including the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the leaders of the opposition parties, who have expounded their views on the cost of living, seemed to be most sincere. If one considers the general tenor of the debate, the avoidance of -any overly narrow party spirit, it is not difficult to ascertain the seriousness' of the situation brought about by the rising cost of living.
However, for those who have gone further, for those who have had the sad privilege of actually coming into contact, if I may say so, with the very victims of this situation, it is not the word "seriousness" which strikes the mind and seizes the imagination, but the word "tragedy".
There is no use describing here the plight of the victims of this tragedy; that is a fact well known and admitted by all except the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). The point is not whether the evil exists, but rather to wrack one's brain to find a solution.
The government claims to have done its best under the circumstances. In the speech from the throne, it expresses its intention to keep on doing its best, even if the attitude it has adopted has not produced any great results as yet.
The official opposition feel the government has done nothing, but they cautiously avoid indicating what it should do, what it might do to remedy the situation.
Another opposition group, the C.C.F. party, at least has had the merit of offering concrete proposals. They suggest price controls and even a return to subsidies, if necessary.
The answer was-and it seemed a not unreasonable one-that the mere administra-
[Mr. Dinsdale.l

The Address-Mr. Poulin
tion of these controls would cost the taxpayers between $100 and $200 million a year. I will add that these controls would be accompanied by a host of informers who would make the people dance and sing according to their whims and fancies.
Because of this helplessness we all feel, I was reminded of a humble suggestion I put forward in this house last April when I said that a practical, easy and quick way to cope with the high cost of living would be to double the amount of family allowances paid by the federal government.
Right away I can guess the objections that will be made. I will be told: What about those who don't get the allowances? I sympathize with those people, childless couples, unmarried veterans, old age pensioners and others. But let us not forget that if difficulties and hardships have doubled for those people, these same difficulties and hardships have been multiplied by 4, 6, 8, and even 10 in the case of large families where, quite often, only one person of moderate income has to provide for 6, 8, or 10 children. I know that our older citizens suffer because of the high cost of living. Let us take care, however, lest following excessive hardships among our children-hardships that prevent children from getting what is essential to their physical and intellectual development-there should grow up in this country a generation of young people prematurely old, whom the state would be compelled to help not at 70, nor at 65 nor at 60 years of age but rather at 50 or even 40, if not during their whole lifetime.
Some will object here again, that such a plan would be very expensive for the Canadian taxpayers. It is true. The government, however, has been getting enormous surpluses for some time. Well, if we stop to think that doubling the amount of the allowances would cost approximately $300 million per year and that on the other hand the unforeseen government surplus for a five-month period this year was over $500 million, we can see that the government would not have too much difficulty in finding the money required for this additional outlay.
This measure which I advocate would be temporary in character. It would remain in force only as long as inflation and high prices prevailed; as soon as they went down, with a consequent reduction in those government surpluses, this supplementary subsidy could be proportionately and gradually brought right back to its present level, as soon as the cost of living is back to normal.
It would be in fact a cost of living bonus paid to families, a measure which has been adopted in principle and in practice by various public and private institutions and which has the advantage of producing results where they are most needed and in proportion to the need.
Such a measure would present the added advantage that its application would not cost a cent more to the government since all the money paid would find its way directly and entirely into the pockets of those it is meant to help.
Finally, the measure would not restrict in any way the freedom of our institutions, which most of us respect so dearly since it was the theme of the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, according to an old saying: "Society is no better than the families that make it up." I advocate this means of protecting the family because of my faith in the essential part played by the family as the parent cell of society.
The family is a sacred institution and no efforts should be spared to support and protect it if we want to uphold society. But who can deny that the family now finds itself in a position where it cannot properly play its part within society?
If the suggestion I have put forward in all humility and sincerity is considered impractical, I wish someone in this house will rise and show why it is considered so.
Until then, the majority of the Beauee county people will remain convinced that our government has failed to use all the means in its power in attempting to remedy, at least partly, a tragic evil that strikes at the families of this country.
(Text):


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take my place among those who have taken part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I should like first to compliment the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session. I also take great pleasure in complimenting the two new members of this house who have spoken, one last night and the other just a few minutes ago. They did an excellent job; and I am sure their constituents will be proud of the men they have sent here to represent them in the House of

The Address-Mr. Wright Commons. I am sure we shall hear more from them not only in this session but in later ones.
There are two matters with which I should like to deal briefly before dealing with the speech itself. The first matter arose out of a statement made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in reply to a statement made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), that the policy of the C.C.F. in advocating a planned economy was that we should control things rather than people. The hon. member for Lake Centre, in his highly dramatic way, said when he rose to speak: What about Saskatchewan? What about Ivanchuk? And he patted his head. I have here the story of the Ivanchuk incident. He implied that the poor fisherman, Mr. Ivanchuk, had had his nets taken away by the government and that he had no means of livelihood for a month. Here are the facts of the case:
As to the return of Ivanchuk's equipment, C. L. McLean, the northern administrator, discussed this with Ivanchuk at South End. Most of Ivanchuk's nets were stored there, and Ivanchuk agreed that it was all right to deliver his nets within a week's time, as he was not going to fish in any case. The rest of his seized equipment was returned the next day. He was entirely in agreement with this, yet in his sworn statement he infers that we were holding his equipment until he signed a release.
With respect to his failure to deliver the fish to the board, I want to point out that in the province of Saskatchewan we have, as there is in other provinces of this dominion, a natural products marketing act. That act is practically the same as that in every other province. Under it, when any group of producers agree that a board shall be set up to market their product, when over 50 per cent of them agree-and in some provinces it is more than that-then all the producers must market that product through the board. You have it in Ontario among your tobacco growers and your vegetable growers. You have it in British Columbia among your apple growers and your dairy producers. We have an act passed by this dominion parliament, known as the wheat board act, under which every producer of wheat in designated areas in western Canada must deliver his wheat to the wheat board. No vote was taken on that measure, either; but I am sure that if a vote were taken it would carry by a large majority. To continue with the Ivanchuk case:
1.	John Ivanchuk began fishing this year without a licence, and shipped 500 pounds of fish to Flin Flon. This was not seized, and we decided not to prosecute, because we thought there might be some doubt in Ivanchuk's mind as to where the fish were to be delivered.
2.	Later, when Ivanchuk received his licence, he was told that he would have to ship to the fish

marketing service, because 95 per cent of the fishermen had voted for the service to handle their catch. This information was also written on the licence he received. If he had not agreed to this he could not have taken out a licence. He was warned subsequently, by field officer Albus, that in future all shipments must be made to the fish marketing service at Beaver Lake.
Despite this, 1,500 pounds of Ivanchuk's fish were shipped to Flin Flon, and on July 5, field officer Albus returned to Ivanchuk's camp, seized his equipment under the fishery regulations, and an investigation was started.
3.	Charges were withdrawn against Ivanchuk for the following reason: He claimed that he told the pilot of Johanessen's Flying Service plane that the fish were to go to Beaver Lake. Charges could still have been placed against Ivanchuk because technically, it was his responsibility to see that the fish reached the proper destination. We decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and charges were withdrawn.
4.	In regard to damages, if Ivanchuk instructed the pilot to take his fish to Beaver Lake, and they ended up at Flin Flon, Ivanchuk could quite properly take action against Johanessen's Flying Service for any damages incurred as a result of contravention of the fishery regulations.
5.	In regard to the matter of compensation, Ivanchuk has been paid for all fish seized from him at the prevailing rate for fresh fish on Reindeer lake. He received exactly the same payment per pound as the other fishermen.
Those are the true facts with regard to this case. That was not the impression which the hon. member for Lake Centre left with the house when he was speaking, and I just thought that it should be corrected.
There is one other matter which I should like to deal with, and that is the censorship of the news coming out of Korea to Canada. I do not know whether it is the responsibility of this government or just to what extent this government has control over the censorship of that news. But I say a situation is being created in this country which is giving an opportunity to many people to undermine our institutions, through that censorship. Certain incidents took place in Korea, and we in this country knew nothing of them until the news leaked in through United States magazines and other sources. Then we had rumours flying all around this country as to the conduct of some of our troops over there. Later on charges were laid and a trial was held. What happened? It became front page news for a whole week in practically every daily paper in Canada, and we heard it over the radio day after day. All that created a wrong impression in this country. It laid the basis for a lot of rumours by people who would like to destroy some of our institutions. Surely we in this country are mature enough at this time to be told the truth about these things. The matter was played down too much in the first place; later it was played up too much. I think there should be some better method of censorship than the one we have. If you listen to the radio, in nearly every broadcast you hear

about dogfights between the United Nations planes and the communist planes. Almost invariably two or three communist planes are destroyed and several are damaged; our planes return without any losses. Yet last night over the radio we got a compilation of the losses suffered among our planes. I did not get the exact figures as they were given too quickly, but something over three hundred of our planes had been destroyed to date while just a little over two hundred of the communist planes had been destroyed. Surely the people of Canada are entitled to more authentic information than we are getting. They treat us as though we were a bunch of morons. We should have the truth. The truth never hurts. In commenting on this matter Maclean's magazine in the last issue said:
The damage done by the suppression of legitimate news isn't easy to repair.
They go on to state the incidents that were mentioned with regard to the neutral zone of Kaesong, and then they say:
Already-this is written in mid-September-there are rumours among the South Koreans of another rape incident and these rumours have drifted to Canada. The press carries no hint of it but the newspaper reader is entitled, if he chooses, to suspect that this doesn't necessarily mean the rumour is untrue. The only way to stop rumours is to give the public the facts as it is entitled to have-and that means all the facts short of those that will profit the enemy. And when there is room for doubt we think experience shows that the enemy can usually make better use of an unpleasant fact denied or suppressed than of an unpleasant fact quickly admitted and honestly atoned for.
That is the attitude we should take. Recently I heard rumours and statements that our troops coming back from Korea are sworn to secrecy. I do not know whether that is true or not. If it is not true the government should deny it; if it is true the government should give some explanation of it to our people, because I know that in the first war-and 1 am sure those who were engaged in the last war were not sworn to secrecy- on our return to either Canada or Great Britain we were not so sworn.
In dealing with the speech from the throne itself, I wish to say that our subamendment stresses two points. It gives a method whereby we in Canada can control inflation at this time, and expresses the reason for the need to control inflation. The reason is that there may be more equality of sacrifice in Canada in this rearmament program in which we are engaged at the present time. It seems to me that should be the basis of our legislation. The basis should be the maximum equality of sacrifice as between the different sections and groups in the country.
I want to say something with regard to inflation itself. To me inflation, if it is not
The Address-Mr. Wright runaway but moderate, is not necessarily an evil. It seems to me that the deflation we had in the thirties was a greater evil than even the inflation we have had to date. When a government fails to control inflation, when it fails to allow time for different sectors of the economy to adjust themselves to the inflationary trends, it becomes dangerous and entails a greater sacrifice on some sections of our economy than on others. That is what has happened. We have had runaway inflation and certain sections of our economy have benefited by it, at least temporarily. Other sections of our economy have had to make undue sacrifices. Among them have been our war veterans. On Monday I sent notice of a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) which I was going to ask him on the orders of the day. That question is as follows:
Will the minister give consideration to the setting up of a veterans affairs committee at this session to consider the necessity of amending the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act to bring payments under them in line with the present cost of living?
I had the courtesy to send notice of that question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I do not think he appreciated that courtesy. He made a statement to the house on the suggestion of a government member. I want to say that I have sent my last notice of a question that I intend to ask on the orders of the day to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. His reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshanki, as reported at page 21 of Hansard was in part:
I wish to say that the government has been considering all veterans legislation and the advisability of appointing a committee, and an announcement will be made at an early date concerning the same.
The government have had three and a half months in which to consider it; yet in the speech from the throne no mention is made of any intention on their part to deal with this matter. I hope that at an early date the Minister of Veterans Affairs will rise in his place and tell the house that it is the intention of the government to set up a veterans affairs committee; that it is the intention of the government to refer the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act to that body; that they will have a reference that will be wider than the reference they had last year, and that they will have authority to make the necessary investigation and freedom to make the necessary recommendations to the government that will bring these acts in line with the present cost of living in Canada.
If there is any group in Canada that is suffering today because of inflation it is those who are on pensions, on fixed incomes, those receiving government annuities, those who

The Address-Mr. Wright have bought government bonds and tried to provide for the future, and others who are on fixed incomes. If there is any group in this country to which consideration should be given at this time it is our veterans. We are engaged in a preparedness program in this and other democratic countries. If we fail to treat the people right who made great sacrifices previously, the boys and girls who enlisted and went out to protect our democracy, if we fail to take proper measures to take care of them, then we will not be strengthening democracy, we will not be strengthening our North Atlantic pact organization. The government must deal with this matter at this session, not at some future date.
I am sure every hon. member has received, as I have, many letters from branches of the Legion. Last year when we were discussing the unemployability supplements the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) said he had received no letters from branches of the Legion in his constituency protesting that legislation. I do not doubt his word at all, but I am sure that by now he has received letters from branches of the veterans organization in his constituency, asking that something be done at this session with regard to these basic pensions and war veterans allowances. We will have failed in our duty at this session of parliament if we do not deal with this matter.
I should like to refer for a few moments to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he spoke on Monday of this week. He is reported at page 38 of Hansard as having said this:
I know farmers in various parts of Canada and X know for a fact that at the present time they are getting a larger share of the national income than they ever got before. X am not saying that they should not. I am not saying that they are getting too much. I know that they work hard for what they get and I feel that the prices they are getting under present price levels are not too high and that it would not be fair to try to roll them back.
He states that farmers are getting the best returns they have ever got in their history. Well, I would not have been surprised if that statement had been made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who sometimes gets enthusiastic and overstates his case. I am surprised, however, that it was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who is noted for his caution. It is not often he makes statements such as that, which cannot be supported by the facts. I consulted the Canada Year Book, and I find that in 1948 the net farm income in Canada was $1,600,336,000. The net national income in Canada that year was $12,474 million. In other words the farm population of Canada were getting approximately 12-7 per cent


of the national income, although today approximately 25 per cent of the population is engaged in agriculture. In 1949 net farm income stood at $1,537,387,000 and the net national income was $12,917 million. The percentage of national income going to the farmers in that year was 11-8, or a drop of [DOT]9 per cent from 1948. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his budget address last April stated the net farm income in Canada for 1950 was $1,424 million while the net national income was $14,308 million. This works out at approximately 10 per cent. In other words for the last three years we have had a gradual but continuous drop in the percentage of national income being got by the farmers of this country.
As a matter of fact there has been only one period in Canada's history, according to the records of the bureau of statistics, when farmers have received a proportionate share of the national income. That was in the period 1916-20, including the last years of the first war and the immediate post-war years. During that time approximately 30 per cent of the people in Canada were engaged in agriculture and they received 30 per cent of the national income. So the statement of the Prime Minister that the farmers at this time are receiving a greater proportion of the national income than they ever received in the past is not borne out by the facts. Farmers are more prosperous than they were during the thirties, certainly; they are more prosperous than they were during the first three years of the war. When in 1941 floor prices were set in Canada, we were getting in western Canada a fraction more than 78 cents a bushel for our wheat, delivered at Fort William. That was something less than 60 cents a bushel on the farm. Yet this is the period used to make the comparison when the statement is made that farm income has increased tremendously. Reference is made to a base period when the farmer was not receiving anything like his fair share of the national income, nor anything like a fair return for the effort he was putting into the production of food for this country and for export. One must conclude, therefore, that sometimes figures can be juggled and thus become misleading, when they are cited to give the position occupied by any particular group in our economy. We have witnessed an increase in the cost of living. The price index stands at 189-8 points, so far as the general index is concerned. But when we come to the cost of farm production we see that the index is slightly more than 217. In other words there has been a greater increase in the cost of farm production than in any other part of our economy.

In using the figures he did use when comparing living costs in Canada with those in the United States, I am afraid the Prime Minister created a wrong impression. He mentioned food alone, but did not make reference to other items which enter into the cost of living. He did not refer to clothing or housing. I hold in my hand a pamphlet called Industry. This is the issue for October, 1951, and it states that the dollar as of August 1, is worth only 40 cents, as compared with the pre-war species when used to purchase groceries. The article proceeds to point out that there are other items which cost more, when compared with their former cost. It states that the dollar, when used in building a home, buys only 34J cents worth of materials, when compared with what it bought in 1939. In respect of home furnishings the figure is about 50 cents on the dollar.
These are basic things all people must have. They must have homes; they must have food; they must have clothing. In buying any of these commodities the dollar today is worth less than the official index indicates. So the poor people, those in the lower income groups, find their dollar is not worth even 50 cents. Yet when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) goes on the air he talks about saving, and the investment of our savings. Many of us were in the house in 1943 and 1944 when Mr. Ilsley, then minister of finance, appealed to us to go back to our constituents and try to encourage our people to make savings, and to buy war bonds. We took him at his word and did as he asked, with the result that some pretty effective campaigns were put on for the sale of war bonds. All the people co-operated. One of the things Mr. Ilsley told us we could tell the people was that if they would save their money now and invest it in war bonds, when the war was over and we got back to peacetime production their dollar would buy more and better goods. We took him at his word.
I am sorry to say that that has not been the experience. I do not know whether, had Mr. Ilsley remained as minister of finance, decontrol would have been carried out as quickly as it was. I doubt it; Mr. Ilsley was a most conscientious man and endeavoured at all times to carry out any promise he made to the people. That promise was made by the government, and it should have been fulfilled. After the war they should have maintained the necessary controls in order that the dollar which they had encouraged the people to invest in war bonds would continue to be worth a full dollar and not 50 cents as it is today. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has asked the people today to increase their savings. What is done with savings?
The Address-Mr. Croll Most people put them in the bank. What happens to those savings when they are placed in the bank? The Bank Act permits the chartered banks to increase their lending capacity by several times the amount of those savings. Just today the Minister of Finance, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), stated that when the small loan companies had sold their debentures and thereby increased their capital by obtaining the savings of our people, they could turn around and lend them again to other people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At 18 per cent.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, at 18 per cent. These are the people who have been deprived of the privilege to buy under deferred payment plans that were previously in effect. Is that consistency? I do not think it is. I do not think our people at the present time are too far away from what happened after 1943 to make the investment which the government has asked them to make in government securities at this time or in the near future. Unless this or any other government is prepared to fulfil its promises to the people, they should not be the government any longer. That is the position we are in today in Canada. It is time this government recognized its responsibility and fulfilled its promises to the people of Canada.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being in the house when the new hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale) made his maiden speech. I am sure I speak for all hon. members when I say that he acquitted himself most admirably. He is a modest and talented young man. I also had the privilege to be in the house yesterday when the new hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) made his maiden speech. He was fluent and spoke in measured terms on a subject close to his heart and about which he knew a good deal. I was struck with the emphasis which the hon. member for Brandon placed upon his youth. It occurred to me immediately that there was a distinction to be drawn between the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Brandon. The hon. member for Brandon is a war baby, very young indeed, and so he may some day live to graduate from the shades of the opposition.
I want also to associate myself with the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) who made a most fervent plea concerning a problem that is peculiarly and especially a Windsor problem. The house ought not to lose sight of the fact that during the war there was built up in Windsor a production

The Address-Mr. Croll team that made that city the arsenal of this country. It would be a sad state of affairs if that was dissipated or broken up in any way.
Last session I had the privilege of being a member of the veterans affairs committee. I have been on every veterans affairs committee since I came into the house. I had occasion to speak on the report brought in by that committee. The veterans organizations appearing before the committee early this year made out a factual, documented and airtight case for an over-all increase in the basic pension. There can be no denial of that. When I last discussed this problem in the house I expressed the view that when we returned to the fall session, which is the present session, the cost of living might be stabilized. We would then be able to deal with the problem of basic increases in a firm and rational manner. The cost of living has not been stabilized; it has continued its upward, relentless grind. If it is not possible for us to control inflation or its by-product high cost of living, we must in some way find some method to compensate its victims.
The veterans affairs committee made a unanimous recommendation that the Legion briefs be studied by the cabinet in the interval between sessions. It was also the view of the committee that an increase in the basic pension should be granted. The cabinet has had ample opportunity to reexamine and study the briefs presented by the veteran groups. I am informed that they have given them meticulous study and sympathetic consideration. I hold the view, which to my knowledge is shared by the vast majority if not all members on this side of the house, that increases can no longer be delayed. Last session we granted increases to judges and civil servants because it was felt that the cost of living made their salaries inadequate. That is equally true of the pensioner. If we judge the position of the veterans by the same standards that were then applied, their case cannot be contradicted. The facts are there for all to see.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated yesterday in the house that in the last twenty-five years we have doubled the old age pension. We have not done that with the veterans pension, yet many of these veterans are in as helpless a position as are some of the old age pensioners. I find that this clamour for an increased veterans pension does not come from the veterans alone. I find that all Canadians wish them to receive benefits which are adequate in the light of present condi-


tions. That means only one thing as we understand it in this house. From time to time we do a great deal of talking about assisting people with fixed incomes who have not measurably benefited from the increased national product; here is an opportunity to help the most deserving of these people. Veterans claims made before the committee and to the cabinet are not a raid upon the treasury. The veterans of this country have never been guilty of such action. We are very fortunate indeed this year; we have a sizeable surplus, which it is indicated is to be used to reduce the public debt. Is our debt to the veterans not a public debt? Should it have less priority than the money debt? I believe our pledge to the veterans is a solemn undertaking written in duty and gallantry. It is the highest moral debt. Let us never forget that they gave the best years of their lives.
I do not think we can delay any longer that which is now long overdue. It has now become an urgent matter, and must be dealt with at this session. There is one course and one course only; that is to grant an over-all increase in the basic pension in the most realistic manner. Members of the opposition have assumed for some reason that the matter of the basic pension cannot or will not be dealt with because there was no direct reference to it in the speech from the throne. I do not subscribe to that view. In common With other members on this side of the house I have kept the veterans request for an increase in the basic pension before the government since the early part of last year. I am given to understand that it has been receiving constant and sympathetic consideration. I am confident-I was going to say "hopeful" but "hopeful" is not a strong enough word-that it will be dealt with at this session and in a manner acceptable to our veterans.
(Translation):


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has informed the hon. members of this house that he is prepared seriously to study and consider any suggestions calculated to stop inflation and to reduce the cost of living.
During the last war, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had the cabinet impose an embargo on the export of meat to the United States so that Great Britain, by virtue of an agreement with our government, could purchase our beef and pork at a reasonable price.
Nobody complained at the time because the price of meat shipped from the west, the great producing centre of this commodity in

our country, reached eastern consumers at about the same price as was being paid by Great Britain.
Why not then adopt the same policy and allow the export of only a quota of our meat production?
The domestic market would thus be sure to get at least part of the production of this great provider of meat, our Canadian west.
The United States do control meat prices and all will agree that meat prices there are lower than in Canada. You will of course wonder why meat is cheaper in the United States even though it is purchased here at a high price? The reason is very simple. It is because those whose job it is to buy foodstuffs for United States troops in Korea find all the meat they can for this purpose here in Canada rather than in the United States, so as not to disturb the American domestic market, supplied by western United States. In this way, the United States price stabilizer is able to keep domestic meat prices at a reasonable level. The United States government would rather pay a subsidy, for that is what it really amounts to, on the purchase of meat for American troops.
How does this affect us? Horse-meat markets have been set up for some time in eastern Canada, especially in Quebec:, where
100,000	horses, or perhaps more, that the Americans refuse to buy will be marketed. What is not good enough for Americans will be dumped in the eastern provinces.
In brief, the population of eastern Canada, the largest in the country, is now in a situation where, as at the siege of Paris, it has to slaughter horses and use them as food.
Until recently, horses slaughtered in Quebec were used in the manufacture of glue; henceforth, people in the poor and medium classes who make up the majority of wage-earners in Quebec will have to eat horse meat because of the great care taken not to incur the disfavour of electors in western Canada, not by one group only but by all political parties represented in the house.
I beg the government to act without delay to put a stop to this situation whereby the people of western Canada force the inhabitants of the east to eat horse meat. In my opinion, such a step would foster unity in Canada, because it would show, in a practical way, that there exists, in critical times, national solidarity among the various sections of this country.
The Address-Mr. LaCroix
National unity should work both ways; since each year taxpayers in eastern Canada make sacrifices to help the western wheat growers, the latter should also make some concessions to their fellow-countrymen of the east. The greed and selfishness of certain western meat producers at the present time will bring about, sooner or later, reprisals from the east.
I am quite sceptical about the sincerity of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and of the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell), who protest against the high level of prices but never speak about this matter. They fear the political consequences of losing the support of western Canada.
I believe the Liberal party should take the bull by the horns and remedy the situation, in the interest of the people at large. This would contribute to curb inflation which is making ever greater strides as regards this essential food.
A Quebec woman told me recently that she bought beef only for her husband, who works hard, so that he may continue to earn his family's livelihood. She added that her ten children did not eat any. They were therefore pitifully undernourished, a deplorable condition for the physical development of our youth.
I congratulate the government on its announced intention of introducing a law to prohibit the fixing of retail prices by manufacturers. Such a measure should have been enacted long ago, its necessity having been established by the Stevens investigation.
It is a serious mistake to complain about prices paid to farmers. If we look at the difference between the price received by the farmer for his product and that charged by the great monopolies which handle and distribute these goods, we note with surprise thait these middlemen reap a greater profit than the producers themselves. In Quebec province the farmer has difficulty in making ends meet. There is nothing surprising in that, if we consider the price he has to pay for everything he needs and the shameful fashion in which he is exploited by the large trust which controls the handling and distribution of animal feeds in so far as the price of the ingredients of these feeds is concerned. This exploitation, by the way, has already been denounced in the McGregor report.
The government should without delay institute proceedings to destroy this formidable trust which exploits our eastern farmers.
148	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. LaCroix
In principle I oppose price control under normal circumstances, but who will be so bold as to claim that the period which we are now going through is not the same as wartime?
There are certain goods, essential to life, which should be controlled by means of a system of arbitration in price fixing, a system which I submitted to the attention of the house last year.
There is no comparison possible between Great Britain and Canada since the former country is obliged to import practically all her food. Great Britain is not an agricultural country, but one huge industrial plant.
Now, about the situation in the United States where they have price control. Here is a statement by Mr. Michael DiSalle, head of the office of price stabilization, as printed by the Gazette on September 8, 1951. I quote:
"The price increase between February 15, 1951, and June 15, 1951, has been eight-tenths of one per cent, that is less than two billion dollars. While we have managed to keep prices within those limits, the price index in Canada, which, unlike the United States has no price control whatever, rose 5-3 points during the same period. Had our prices risen at the same speed as those in Canada it would have cost the American consumer seven billion dollars, or $150 per family of three."
National defence takes up a large part of our production. That is a factor to be taken into account in formulating a policy calculated to maintain the purchasing power of the dollar. Otherwise we are heading for a disaster which will continue to devaluate our dollars still further. Our government loans will be affected thereby. This will constitute a flagrant injustice towards those who had invested their savings in government bonds and might seriously upset the financial stability of our banks and insurance companies which, as you know, have been the heaviest subscribers to these loans.
After the first world war, I found myself in Paris, where I remained about four years. I realized then the meaning of the word inflation.
The franc started out at 20 cents and fell to 5 cents. Government debentures naturally followed the downward movement. I have seen old people who, after having saved all their lives, after having bought an annuity or acquired a government pension and thinking they had thus achieved security, were obliged, though well on in age, to take jobs
[Mr. LaCroix.J

as taxi drivers, janitors, watchmen, etc., or else rely entirely on charity.
Most insurance companies no longer honoured their obligations and, for people on fixed incomes, stark distress became their lot. It is this very thing that explains why there are so many communists in France and in all the European countries. These people have nothing left and, what I consider to be even worse, they have lost all hope.
Only those who owned some real property or stocks of imperishable goods were able to save their capital. That is what causes, in our own country, the tremendous increase in inventories already pointed out, and justly so, by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). As a matter of fact, several of our manufacturers now prefer stocking finished goods to selling them, in the hope of getting a better price. Here again the government should act promptly, in order to force the normal sale of finished products.
I often wonder if our financial contribution in Korea and that required by our adherence to the Atlantic pact will not inevitably foster a condition similar to Europe's, for we must not forget that here in Canada we are only a small population of 13,000,000 people. Such a population surely cannot bear the brunt of taxation beyond possible bounds. Nor must it be forgotten that when the government increases the burden of taxes it helps to increase the cost of living.
The recent applications of public utilities, such as the Bell Telephone, for an increase in rates because taxes had gone up, are concrete examples.
I doubt the sincerity of the members of the opposition when they roar against the high cost of living because instead of striking at the root of the evil and of making suggestions to destroy it, they keep on asking for an increased war preparedness effort. On the other hand, in so far as the domestic market is concerned, they dare not tackle the problem for fear of losing votes in western Canada. I prefer the position taken by the Prime Minister who states frankly that he recognizes the seriousness of the situation and invites this house to make suggestions that will be acted upon if they are practicable.
We can see the whole difference between Liberalism, which is open to all methods calculated to ensure the security of the mass of the people, and Toryism, whose sole Objec-

tive is always to protect the monopolies and financial dictatorship, the leitmotif of its very existence.
The leader of the Progressive Conservative party sometimes makes beautiful statements, but when he has to put his fair words into practice he always knows how to back out, but fails to hoodwink the public who, fortunately, can see through his game.
I am pleased with the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne which has been moved by the leader of the opposition. Indeed, it embodies exactly what I have always suggested since the beginning of the present inflation period. Strong methods are no doubt required to check inflation, for the more we let prices reach astronomical levels the more terrible shall be the reaction when it occurs, and all the more disastrous the economic consequences.
Therefore, in closing, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to urge the government to do everything possible to check the falling off in the purchasing power of the dollar. I ask this on behalf of all those who through their industry and thrift have laid away some savings, on behalf of the great mass of workers who have a fixed income, on behalf of all those who still believe in government bonds, on behalf of all the breadwinners who want to bring up their children decently so that they may become useful citizens of the Canadian community and lastly, on behalf of those who shall pass away, leaving to their widows and orphans only an insurance policy worth but half its face value.
(Text):


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I shall not delay you too long. I am sorry I was not able to follow the previous speaker, but unfortunately I am not conversant with the French language. I intended to follow the member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). This afternoon I had the privilege of entertaining the wife of the gentleman whom I defeated in the last election. The reason I mention this fact is that it is an example of democracy at its best. So long as we can keep that form of government in Canada, everything will be all right. The gentleman whom I defeated in the last election has been a personal friend of mine for many years, as has been his wife. I am very proud of that fact. Accompanying that very charm-
The Address-Mr. Cruickshank ing lady was a dear friend of my own provincial minister from the province of British Columbia. I mention this just to point out that I think we have so much to be proud of in this House of Commons.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, I am not reading my speech, nor have I any notes. I admit that I could probably make a better speech if I had one of the members of the press gallery, a member of the staff or a member of the opposition write it for me. If at any time I do read a speech, I shall not put it down here but I shall hold it up for all to see, and I shall send a copy to Hansard before I read it. The reason I mention that is this. We are so proud, particularly in my own riding, of the form of government we have in our country. I had today the privilege of introducing that lady to my leader, our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew).
I am particularly proud of being a Canadian. Since I have been a member of the House of Commons-and it has not been so very long-the most important piece of legislation, in my opinion, which has been brought down in this building was that whereby we were able to say "I am a Canadian". I am proud of being a Canadian. Sometimes I do not altogether agree with my own party on some of the legislation they bring down; and I certainly do not always agree with the legislation suggested by the opposition. One reason for that, sir, is that since 1940 I have had the privilege of rooming with a very distinguished man, but I could not stand it any longer and 1 now room alone. I have also had the privilege of sitting in this house with many leaders of the opposition, and they could not make up their minds. I have had to endeavour to make up my mind, on behalf of my own party, as to the ultimate destination of George Cruickshank. I realize that you, Mr. Speaker, as a result of your position, have responsibility for the transportation of articles within this great building. I can assure you, sir, that when my time comes to take the long but short walk down the corridor from room 565 I will take my own belongings to where I may be assigned in that other place.
I am not going to talk about the cost of living, although I realize how important it is to the people of Canada. I am not even going to stage a filibuster. I do not know whether private bills are going to be dealt with at this session; but if they are, I shall have something to say on that occasion. Again may I say that I am not reading my speech. I have not even a note. I have a tie brought back to me-by one who went

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank on one of those overseas expeditions-from The Hague, not from Geneva. It is a beautiful tie. In order that you may recognize it, Mr. Speaker, I will wear it tomorrow.
What I want to say is this, and I am speaking on behalf of everybody in my riding, particularly those in the Legion to which I happen to have the honour of belonging.	I am proud of being a life
member. I am proud of what the Legion has done. I am proud of the fact that within my riding I have six of the finest branches of the Legion in the Dominion of Canada. Some half million dollars is invested there, and there are about 4,000 paid-up members. That is fairly good for a rural riding.
I want to reiterate what has been said by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). Since I first came here I have had the privilege of belonging to the veterans affairs committee. In so far as my ability permitted me to do so, I have had the privilege of making recommendations on behalf of the veterans and their dependents. In what I have to say I am not speaking only on behalf of the Legion within my riding; I honestly believe that I am speaking on behalf of every citizen within my riding, irrespective of his party, creed or colour. We believe that we have a duty we owe to those who enabled us to sit here today making suggestions and making criticisms with regard to the form of administration we should receive. I am not speaking for the government, naturally. Some day I hope to move down about three desks, at which time I will speak for them; but in the meantime I am not speaking for them. I honestly believe, however, the government realizes that the feeling throughout Canada-and certainly within my own riding-is that if we can have a surplus of $500 million in five months to be used, as intimated by the Minister of Finance, to pay off the national debt, the first obligation we owe and should pay is the one to those who gave so mpch on our behalf. I sincerely and honestly hope that the government will at this session-at this session, I repeat-take steps to bring about some form of increase in the basic rate of pension to those who gave so much on our behalf.
On motion of Mr. Adamson the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) the house adjourned at 6.50 p.m.

Thursday, Oclober 18, 1951